IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.552 of 2011 SUDARSHAN KUMAR KASHYAP, Son of Sri Ramednra Prasad Singh Alias Makhan Singh, resident of village – Khetalpura, P.S. Barbigha, District Shekhpura (petitioner) …… Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Baily Road, Patna 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. Hira Lal Nag (Roll No. 304240), name of father not known to the petitioner, through Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna (Respondents) ….. Respondents ----------- 3 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and also learned counsel for the State. Since the appellant / writ petitioner had claimed 40% disability but produced a certificate which showed only 30% disability, the Commission had to withdraw the recommendation made in his favour, therefore, a corrigendum was issued in view of minimum 40% disability required for appointment. As a result another person next in the merit list having minimum disability was appointed. The writ petition 2 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the aforesaid facts. While hearing this L.P.A. at the stage of passing interim order, a direction was issued to examine the petitioner by another Medical Board to ascertain his disability. The Medical Board consisting of three doctors, two belonging to Patna Medical College and Hospital and the other being the Director – in – Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, has submitted its report dated 25.4.2011 and the same shows the disability of the petitioner to be only 25% . Let the report be kept on record. The aforesaid report was shown to learned counsel for the appellant and he sought permission to challenge that report. Since the said report was obtained under the order of this Court and not by volition of the appellant, considering the aforesaid stand of the appellant, we have decided to ignore the said report for the present proceeding hence it requires no challenge. Since the report earlier submitted by the appellant shows him to be suffering only from 30% 3 disability, we find no good reasons to take a different view in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)