MUNIR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. On 27.09.2019, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents was granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Matter was adjourned twice thereafter on 06.11.2019 and 20.11.2019 but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut by which the petitioner, a selected candidate for the post of Constable, who had also passed his Physical Efficiency Test in terms of Appendix-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, has been denied his right to join training along with similarly circumstanced candidates on ground that on a medical examination done subsequently, he has been declared short in height measuring 167.03 cm. The petitioner's case is that in the Physical Efficiency Test held in accordance with Appendix-2 of Rules, 2015 (Supra), the petitioner was found to possess the required height of 168 cm. He had qualified in two other parameters of physical examination, that is to say, chest size and weight.
(3.) The crux of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanjeev Singh is that the Physical Efficiency Test once it is held and the parameters of height, chest size and weight determined in accordance with Appendix-2 to the Rules, 2015 (supra), the said parameters cannot be gone into at the subsequent stage of medical test. The submission is that the medical test that is envisaged is to determine other health parameters of a candidate, such as knock knee, bow legs, flat feet, varicose veins, distance and near vision etc., but does not relate to the three parameters of physical standards at that stage determined in the test held under Rule 15 (9) read with Appendix-2 to the Rules of 2015. It is argued that Physical Efficiency Test that is held under schedule 2 to Rule 15(d) is final and the determination made there is not open to an appeal as would appear from Rule 15(d)(3) of the Rules, 2015. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Writ-A No. 14195 of 2018 Bhanu Pratap Rajput vs. State of U.P. and 5 others decided on 05.09.2018. In Bhanu Pratap Rajput (Supra), it has been held thus by this Court: "Having examined the submissions advanced, this Court finds that under the Rules of 2015, the task of ascertaining physical standard of a candidate is assigned to be got conducted by the Police Recruitment Board as specified under rule 15(d) of the Rules of 2015. The procedure for determining the physical standard of a candidate is also specified in the Rules, which is already noticed in the order dated 03.08.2018, extracted above. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had cleared physical standard test got conducted by the Recruitment Board itself in the manner prescribed in the Rules of 2015. Such opinion formed by the Board attaches finality; in as much as, no appeal shall lie under the Rules against such determination, nor a retest would be permissible for reasons of health and any other grounds, whatsoever. Ordinarily, such determination made under the control of Board on the physical standards of a candidate would be final. The medical examination of a candidate is warranted in terms of rule 13, so as to ascertain that the candidate appointed is in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect, which is likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. A note is also appended to rule 13, which provides that Medical Board shall examine the candidate for any physical standard prescribed for height, chest and weight measurement. Ordinarily, a conflict in determination of physical standard under Schedule - II and by the Board under Schedule - III is not conceived of under the Rules. However, when such an eventuality does arise, it would have to be seen as to which of the two opinions would be more reliable. The affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Police Recruitment Board places reliance upon rule 13 of the Rules 2015 to state that the appointing authority would be entitled to get the medical examination conducted of a candidate to ascertain as to whether the candidate is in the good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties, but it fails to answer as to what would happen in a case of conflict? Difference in assessment of physical standard at two different stages of recruitment is not in dispute. The procedure under rule 15(d) read with Schedule - II is elaborate and attaches finality on the determination of physical standard of a candidate. At the stage of conduct of medical examination, the scrutiny under Appendix - 3 is essentially with regard to deficiencies in a candidate, such as, knock knee, bow legs, flat feet, varicose veins, distance and near vision, etc. and not with respect to physical standards of a candidate. The scope of examination is essentially distinct at two levels. While determination of physical standards is addressed by rule 15(d) read with Appendix - 2, the medical examination of candidate by virtue of Appendix - 3 is centred on his/her deficiencies. Rule 13 contemplates examination of physical fitness of a candidate for ensuring that the candidate possesses good mental and bodily health and is free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. No doubt, note appended to rule 13 provides that medical board shall examine the candidate for physical standards prescribed for height, chest and weight measurement, but there exists no stipulation in Appendix - 3 regarding use of standardized equipments for ascertaining such physical standards. The manner of determining such physical attributes or use of instruments for the purpose is not specified. The argument of Shri Manish Goyal that a Doctor, on account of his skill, can better determine the physical standards of a candidate, i.e., height, chest and weight, even in the absence of standardized equipments, cannot be accepted. It is, otherwise, not in issue that no such standardized equipments were, in fact, provided to the medical board at the time of medical examination. The assessment of physical standard of a candidate by use of standardized equipments, having Bureau of Indian Standards certification or duly certified by the Director of Weights and Measures in terms of clause (4) of Appendix - 2, is entitled to greater weight, then an assessment of physical standard by the medical board in absence of such standardized equipments. Assessment of physical standard by the Committee constituted under Appendix - 2 to the Rules of 2015 with aid of standardized equipments, which, otherwise, attains finality under the Rules, therefore, is liable to be preferred over the determination made by the medical board in terms of Appendix - 3, which had no standardized equipments provided to it for the purposes" ;