Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6590 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21011 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anadi Anant Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Rani,Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Laloo Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prem Narain Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner, who is candidate for the post of Constable (GD) in the examination held in the year 2024, is aggrieved for the decision taken by the respondents to declare him unfit on account of mild restrictive lungs disease in the review medical conducted on 6th November, 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that petitioner's candidature itself was found medically unfit for markings noted in B/L lung fields. Thus, petitioner was found unfit for lungs' disease only and he has been rejected in review medical board for the same reason and he cannot complaint of. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon an order of this Court passed in Writ - A No.- 19476 of 2023, in which the Court relying upon the judgment in the case of Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and others passed in Special Appeal Defective No.- 117 of 2020, in which the Court had declined to interfere with the review matter where a candidate had been found to be medically unfit. The Court further expressed its view vide paragraph 7 of the order thus: "7. Even otherwise, law is well settled that "unless the opinion of the Medical Board or Review Medical Board is erroneous or capricious or vague and smacks of malafide, the Court should refrain from interfering with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board which is a body constituted of experts to assess the fitness of candidate as per the norms and standards prescribed in respect of fitness of a candidate who is supposed to work in the police force." [Union of India v. Parul Punia, 2016 (2) ADJ 14]. This judgment has been followed by a coordinate bench in the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors (Writ - A No. 5668 of 2021, decided on 03.08.2001). Recently in the case of Shahbaj Khan v. Union of India & Ors (Writ - A No. 15248 of 2023) decided on 13.07.2023, I have referred to another later judgment of Division Bench in the case of Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 117 of 2020, wherein it had been observed that "In a case where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder a procedure has been prescribed for testing the medical fitness of candidates by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a candidate on the basis of some subsequent report(s) procured by him from a private practitioner(s). It is not the case of the petitioner that the decision of the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with the procedure under the relevant statutory recruitment rules." Even I have followed this legal view recently in the case of Miss Neha v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors (Writ - A No. 10905 of 2023)." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivansh Singh v. Union of India and others passed in Special Appeal No.- 1076 of 2024 decided on 16th December, 2024, in which the Court also observed vide paragraph 13 thus: "13. In the present case, where recruitment process has been carried out as per the prescribed procedure whereunder the medical fitness of candidates has been tested by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by the appellant-petitioner on the basis of some subsequent report procured by him from another medical practitioner." 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, this Court is of the view that once the petitioners' claim has been rejected in the review medical board, which is a body of experts, this Court has no expertise and mechanism to test the experts' opinion and override the same. Even otherwise, I find that petitioner was declared unfit in the first medical test for lungs' disease and even in the review medical board the petitioner was found unfit for the same reason. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the competent authority of the matter. 8. Thus, petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad