IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12096 of 2011 Ajay Kumar S/O Sri Naresh Prasad R/O Village - Attasaray, P.O. - Islampur, P.S. - Islampur, Distrcit - Nalanda, Pin – 801303 …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India Through The DIGP, Group Centre CRPF. Mokama Ghat, Bihar 2. DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Mokama Ghat, Bihar 3. Medical Officer of the Rectt. Board SMO, 160 Battalion, CRPF, Mokama Ghat, Bihar 4. Dr. Om Prakash, Senior Resident Dept. Of P.M.R., N.M.C.H., Patna, Bihar 5. Medical College, Composite Hospital, CRPF Jhapaha, Muzaffarpur …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Rohit Kumar, :Rajesh kr. Choudhary & :Mr. Kavita Singh For the respondents :Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Asstt. Solicitor General Govt of India ----------- 04. 26.09.2011 Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable GD/Male in Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’). Petitioner’s case is that he was initially made to appear at the physical eligibility test followed by written test and in both the tests he was declared successful. Petitioner was thereafter subjected to medical fitness test on 23.01.2011 whereafter he was found medically unfit as he was found suffering from External hemorrhoids. The aforesaid communication is (Annexure-2). Petitioner, as per the liberty granted in the said communication, obtained a medical fitness certificate form the Senior Resident, Dept. of P.M.R. N.M.C.H., Patna (Annexure-3) and thereafter filed appeal for subjecting him to review medical test. By communication dated 20.02.2011, (Annexure-4) he was informed to appear for the review medical test/examination at Composite Hospital CRPF, Muzaffarpur on 26.02.2011. The petitioner has 2 asserted in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that on the said date he was present but due to some reasons the review medical examination was postponed to 9.3.2011. On 9.3.2011, the petitioner again presented himself for review medical board but he was only made to sign the register and was not medically examined. Thereafter he received no communication which propelled him to file writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that petitioner was medically examined by the Review Medical Board on 9.3.2011 and thereafter he was found medically unfit for the same reason. It is contended that signature of the petitioner was obtained on the review medical report and thereafter he was permitted to go back home. The respondents have enclosed the report of the Review Medical Board as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application states that Annexure-A does not disclose that the signature of the petitioner was obtained thereon. It is contended that the signature was obtained on the sheet when he was first medically examined by the Board. It is next contended that even if the case of the respondents is to be accepted, it does not appear therefrom (Annexure-4) that any consideration was made with regard to certificate of medical fitness granted by the doctor in favour of the petitioner (Annexure-3). Learned counsel 3 has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh vs. Union of India since reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 357 in support of this contention that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents may be directed to arrange for a fresh Review Medical Board of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India and its officials with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit states that petitioner was medically re-examined by the Review Medical Board. The allegation of the petitioner that he was not subjected to Review Medical Board is a question of fact which needs a detailed enquiry and the matter be remitted back to the authorities to make a detailed enquiry in this regard. Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on records, it appears that petitioner was initially summoned for medical fitness test whereat he was found medically unfit as he was found suffering from External Hemorrhoid. The petitioner got himself medically examined by a doctor at NMCH, Patna (Annexure-3) whereafter he was found medically fit for the job. The doctor issuing the said certificate found the opinion of the doctor of the CRPF as an error of judgment. The case of the petitioner is that he was not thereafter subjected to review medical test. On going through the report of the review medical test (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), it appears that the doctor while holding him medically unfit did not take into consideration the certificate of the doctor (Annexure-3). It further appears therefrom that the signature of the petitioner is 4 not appearing on the said report whereas positive case of the respondents is that petitioner was intimated about the result of the Reviews Medical Board on the same day i.e. on 9.3.2011 after taking his signature on the Review Medical Board’s report. In the case of Dharmendra Singh (supra), this Court interfered with the matter on the ground that Review Medical Board while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner did not consider the report given by the Medical officer which was filed in support of the medical fitness. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case appearing from record, this Court deems it expedient to direct the Respondent-DIGP to get the case of the petitioner re- examined afresh by another Medical Board in the light of the medical fitness certificate (Annexure-3) and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.2 with an application annexing therewith the present orders within four weeks whereafter the said respondents shall arrange a Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioner by the said board as soon as possible preferably within two weeks from the date of its filing. The application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )