Court No. - 3 1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6778 of 2025 Petitioner :- Badal Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Singh,Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. & 2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6779 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nikhil Panwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Singh,Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. Learned counsels for the parties contend that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the writ petitions together and they are being decided by way of a common judgement. 4. For convenience, facts of WRIT - A No. - 6778 of 2025 are being taken. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has qualified for the post of Constable. His name finds place at Serial No.10609 and the petitioner has been found fit for being posted in Bijnaur. A copy of the extract of the select list is Annexure- 12 to the petition. 6. It is contended that even prior to the select list being issued, the petitioner had been examined medically but without assigning any reason, he was found medically unfit. Upon filing of an appeal and constitution of a medical board as specifically averred in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition, the petitioner claims to have been informed that he has been declared ineligible on account of ear perforation which is a curable condition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner got himself treated for the said ear defect and the operation has been successful as per the discharge slip, copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition. Thus, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to conduct a fresh medical examination considering that the alleged medical condition with which the petitioner was suffering is no longer in existence. 8. On the other hand, Shri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Superintendent of Police, Baghpat dated 04.06.2025, argues that the petitioner had been declared unfit by the initial medical board constituted at District Level. Upon an appeal being filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Level Board, which also consisted of an expert relating to the medical deficiency of the petitioner, the Board has declared the petitioner as unfit on account of his medical condition. 9. It is contended that subsequent thereto, there is no provisions per which another medical examination may be conducted by the Medical Board and thus even if the petitioner may have been cured, as stated by him in the instant petition, the same does not give any right to him for being appointed. 10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that after the petitioner has been declared selected for the post of Constable. He was subjected to medical examination as per rules. In both the medical examinations, he has been declared unfit. 11. Specific case of the petitioner is that subsequent thereto, he has undergone an operation and the medical defect which had resulted in him to be declared unfit by two medical boards, now stands cured consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to not appoint the petitioner considering the present medical condition of the petitioner more particularly when he has qualified the selection. 12. Let this aspect of the matter be considered by the competent authority which is said to be respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat. For this purpose, the petitioner may submit a comprehensive representation before the respondent No.3 within a period of 3 days. In case such a representation along with a certified copy of this order is made before the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner and also consider as to whether the medical defect with which he was suffering has been cured and as such whether as per rules he can now be appointed considering the present medical condition of the petitioner. 13. Let such a consideration be made within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 14. As an abundant precaution, it is provided that in case respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat finds himself unable to process the representation of the petitioner, then he would remit the same before the competent authority within the aforesaid period of time and the competent authority would proceed to consider the same in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench