The Allahabad High Court has said that a candidate who has been successful in physical efficiency test and examination from the medical board, taken under the rules and standards in police recruitment, cannot be held unfit in the examination of the medical board again.

The Court has cancelled the order of declaring unfit in the medical board examination of selected candidates, who had been successful in the physical test and medical board in 2018 police recruitment. The Court has directed the board to issue an appointment letter.

A single bench of Justice Ajit Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Dharam Raj. The petitioner’s advocate said that after examining the physical efficiency test and medical board, the petitioner was selected. Instead of sending him for training, the medical board’s investigation has again declared him unfit.

The Court said that after being declared fit in the investigation under the rules, refusal to declare the length and decrease in chest expansion has been declared incorrect. The petitioner also has a similar situation.

Also Read: Kangana Ranaut has right to express her opinion on Twitter, says Bombay HC

The Court then canceled the investigation report and directed the appointment of the candidate.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Madhya Pradesh High Court today dismissed the petition of a person seeking appointment to the post of Guest Teacher, because he did not have an appointment letter. The court also made it clear that appointment cannot be sought merely because the name is mentioned in the list of selected applicants.  For this, the issue of an appointment letter is also necessary.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav (Acting) and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing advocate Sandeep Kumar Mishra, on behalf of petitioner Sunil Kumar Sharma.

The counsel argued that the petitioner is an MPhil degree holder and has done commendable performance in the field of sports. He appeared in the online examination of guest Teacher in 2018-19.  He was successful, but was not provided with an appointment letter. Therefore, an order for the appointment should be issued. 

Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared on behalf of the state. He opposed the petition to the point of lack of appointment letter.

The court agreed with the argument and dismissed the petition.  The court made it clear that even if the petitioner appeared in the examination and was successful, he should have an appointment letter. If the petition had been filed with the appointment letter, the petition could have been called meaningful and a relief order could have been given. But it was a mistake to file an incomplete petition. That is why the petition is dismissed. 

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh government to constitute ‘gau cabinet’ to protect cows in state

The Petitioner’s counsel also outlined the academic points of the petitioner, but the court did not agree.