IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17736 of 2011 Mukesh Kumar Choudhary …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Home Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director General Assam Rifles Shillong Meghalaya 3. The Additional D.G. Assam Rifles Shillong Meghalaya 4. The Laftinent General Assam Rifles Shillong Meghalaya 5. The Colonel (Records) Assam Rifles Shillong Meghalaya 6. The Commandant Assam Rifles, Training Centre and School, C/o 99 APO, Dimapur, Nagaland 7. The Presiding Officer, Recruitment …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Kumar Rajeev & :Mr. Kumar Kaushlendra For the Respondent :Mr. Raghib Ahsan, ASG ----------- 02. 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondent-Union of India and its officials. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable (GD) in Assam Rifles. It is the case of the petitioner that he was called in for physical eligibility test followed by written test. In both the tests he was cleared. Thereafter he was provisionally appointed subject to medical fitness test by an order dated 19th July, 2010 (Annexure-2). Petitioner was subsequently subjected to medical fitness test whereat he was found unfit due to tympanic membrane perforation (LT.). It is the petitioner’s case that he treated himself of the said ailment at various hospitals whereafter he was declared fit. Petitioner made a representation for subjecting him to review medical test whereafter by a 2 communication dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-6) he was summoned for such review medical test to be held on 30th December, 2010. Petitioner was again subjected to medical fitness test whereafter he was again found unfit due to same disability/ailment. Petitioner was accordingly informed by a communication dated 9th May, 2011 (Annexure-7). Dissatisfied by review test carried out by one doctor, the petitioner made a representation before respondent no.4 (Annexure-8) which was not responded to. Learned counsel submits that in some what similar circumstance, this Court had directed the authority to constitute the review medical board consisting of more than one doctors. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the orders of this Court contained in Annexure 9 series. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that petitioner was examined by the Review Medical Board and was again found medically unfit and, as such, he is not entitled to continue in service since his selection was provisional and subject to medical fitness. Learned counsel, however, in view of the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure 9 series, submits that the application may be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure-8) in the light of the order contained in Annexure-9 series. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, particularly the averment made in para 4 (ix), this Court is satisfied that the present matter be disposed of 3 by the following order:- Let the petitioner file a fresh representation along with a copy of the present order before respondent no.4 within four weeks whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in focus the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 8497 of 2003 (Annexure-9) within six weeks of filing of the representation. If the respondent is satisfied that the petitioner deserves to be subjected to review medical test afresh then he shall ensure that the Review Medical Board consists of at least 02 E.N.T. specialists. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )