CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 28 ,2011 Sanjay Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had applied for appointment as Constable in Government Railway Police in response to advertisement issued on 8.6.2003. Total posts advertised were 350 and the petitioner had submitted his application in the reserved category of scheduled caste. The petitioner cleared physical test on 11.10.2003 and was referred for medical examination. He was medically examined by Chief Medical Officer on 14.7.2004 and was told that he was disqualified on the basis of colour blindness. The petitioner claims that he is not suffering from any such infirmity. The petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: accordingly pleaded for one more chance. He also got himself privately examined at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was not found suffering from colour blindness. Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani, had written to the Director General, PGIMS, Rohtak, who in turn, asked the Civil Surgeon, to send the proceedings of the Medical Board qua the petitioner. The documents were accordingly sent but still the petitioner did not hear anything further. The petitioner sent a legal notice on 11.11.2009 and ultimately has filed this writ petition. This Court had referred the petitioner to PGIMS, Chandigarh, to constitute a Board and to re-examine him on the ground that there were two contradictory reports. PGI, Chandigarh, has given the report to the Court, which according to the State counsel, would show that the petitioner can not be considered medically fit so far as colour blindness is concerned. Since the PGI, Chandigarh, had only referred to the tests and had not opined on the fitness, the State counsel was directed to file affidavit of competent authority to confirm if the petitioner would be fit for the job on the basis of report given by PGI, Chandigarh. The Civil Surgeon instead constituted a Board, which had examined the documents in detail and on the basis thereof Deputy Civil Surgeon, Medical, Bhiwani has filed an additional affidavit to say that the petitioner is unfit for appointment. The additional affidavit would disclose that Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani, had constituted a Medical Board of three eyes surgeons. The Board had asked for the complete record and had also examined the gazette notification and other medical examination CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: instructions in regard and has also considered the certificate issued by the Eye Centre, PGI, Chandigarh. After considering all the documents, the Board has opined that the petitioner is unfit for service in a police force as per the gazette of India notification guidelines dated December 9, 1995, copy of which is annexed with the affidavit as Annexure R-1. Counsel for the petitioner still disputes this position and has made reference to the nature of test conducted to urge that the petitioner has been found fit by PGI, Chandigarh, after holding one of these tests and hence, the Medical Board is not justified in declaring the petitioner unfit. I am of the considered opinion that this Court would have no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the expert. The requirement of medical standards is provided in the statutes and has to be seen by the experts. The scope of judicial review in such like matters is limited. The Court is only required to see if the relevant material has been considered while arriving at a decision and no irrelevant considerations have percolated into the decision. Court generally can interfere in the decision making process and not the decisions as such. The prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, thus, is beyond the parameters of judicial review. No case for interference, thus, is made out to substitute the finding given by the Board on the basis of relevant material. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 28,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE