IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19669 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.07.2011 Amit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. N.S. Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Indian Tibetan Border Police Force and was declared successful in the written test. He was, however, declared medically unfit. The petitioner has approached this Court after getting himself medically examined from PGIMS, Rohtak and prays for directions for the respondents to appoint him. The petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that he was suffering from low IQ slight, stammering, Vulgaris and depressed mind. The report obtained by the petitioner from PGIMS, Rohtak does not help him much. The petitioner has been diagnosed as case of average intelligence IQ- 98. He has also been diagnosed suffering from skin disease and has been advised treatment. So far as speech is concerned, it is found that fast rate speech is noticed. Omission of syllables present during reading and he was advised Civil Writ Petition No. 19669 of 2010 -2- reading practice with prolonged words 15 minutes twice a day. The report of PGIMS, Rohtak does not show the petitioner to be fit. In any case, the requirement of physical standard for enrollment would be for the respondents to judge. It is not appropriate for this Court to substitute its own opinion in regard to medical fitness of the petitioner. Faced with this situation, the counsel contends that he had filed an appeal, which has not been entertained. Counsel for the respondents says that appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as he was not the selected candidate but was listed amongst those, who were 20% extra. The petitioner was not selected. The respondents may consider if the appeal filed by the petitioner against medically unfitness is open for consideration. The petitioner may be apprised by the respondents in case the appeal is not maintainble. No case for interference is made out in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE