IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12418 of 2006 MOHIT SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Satyendra Kr. Jha, Advocate C.G.C. ------------ 4 05.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. Prima facie the Court is of the opinion that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court, but now that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents then it will neither serve the interest of the petitioner nor the respondents to dismiss the application on that ground alone. Petitioner stands discharged from a Para-Military Organization known as Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (I.T.B.P.F.) vide order dated 17.08.2006 contained in Annexure – 1. The reason for the discharge of the petitioner is that in the medical examination which was held on him after recruitment, it was found that the petitioner had suffered head injury (old) with poor memory functions and mild depression. The medical board was of the opinion that the petitioner with his physical condition of the kind, pointed out, did not satisfy the medical standards and was - 2 - not fit for recruitment. Petitioner had the option of asking for Review Medical Board, but it seems somewhere along the same was not availed of. The respondents treating the opinion of the Medical Board to have been accepted by the petitioner, issued the order of discharge contained in Annexure – 1. Primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a violation of the rules of natural justice and this order of discharge could not have been passed against him without giving him opportunity of hearing. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not only stated the factual position, but also indicated the rules and reason why the petitioner had been discharged. Petitioner had not been appointed in the Force on a permanent basis. He was only recruited for enrolment and enlistment in the Force subject to satisfying the physical standards laid down in this regard. If under the process of recruitment itself he do not meet the standards which is available on record based on an opinion recorded by the panel of experts, then the petitioner had a right to ask for a Review Medical Board by producing yet another opinion of an expert not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon. But, since - 3 - the petitioner decided not to avail of the same the question of his enlistment or enrolment on a permanent basis did not arise. Primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had a right of hearing is misplaced. He had a right of second opinion which he did not avail of. Since the petitioner had not been enlisted on the Force and had not acquired the status of permanent civil servant, there is no question of holding any inquiry for his discharge which has been done in the present case. The Court does not find anything a miss or erroneous in the impugned order of discharge which has been issued against the petitioner. The writ application has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)