IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14593 of 2011 Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Meghanath Roy R/O At- Zilkabad Muthiya, P.O. + P..S- Zilkabad, Distt.- Saran(Bihar) …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Its Secretary Home Affairs, Govt. Of India 2. The Director General, CRPF CGO Complex, Block No.- 1, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 3. The Regional Director CRPF Staff, Selection Commission 8-Ab Bailey Road, Allahabad-211002, Uttar Pradesh 4. Dr. Mrinal Hazarika, Chief Medical Officer, Border Security Force 5. Dr. S.K. Parinal (Ophthal Molog1st) CMO (SG) COMDT, C.R.P.F. C.H, NEEMUCH 6. The Inspector General (Pers) Director General CRPF, Block No.- 1 CGO Complex New Delhi- 110003 7. The D.I.G. (Admn) Director General (CRPF) CGO, Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 8. The D.I.G. CRPF, CGP Complex, Block No.1, Lodhi Road,New Delhi 9. The Inspector General, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna …..Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Shashi Shekar Tiwary For the Respondent- Union of India :Mr. Sahvind Kr. Sharma ----------- 03. 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India and its officials. Petitioner seeks a direction for quashing of the medical report/order dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder he was declared unfit/unsuitable for the job due to abnormal gait. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission/SCC) (respondent no.3) for recruitment to the post of S.I. (direct entry), the petitioner applied and was invited to participate in physical efficiency/eligibility test. On 2 clearing the same, he was allowed to take written examination/test consisting of two papers. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the conditions of employment notice, the petitioner was required to be found medically fit by a Medical Board of the respondents whereafter paper 2 of the written examination was to be evaluated. It is the case of the petitioner that he cleared the written test whereafter he was subjected to medical fitness test by a Medical Board constituted by the respondents wherein he was held unfit on account of three reasons assigned therein (Annexure-1). Petitioner thereafter got himself medically examined and after obtaining the medical fitness certificate(s) represented/appealed in terms of the provisions of the communication for subjecting him to Review Medical Board. Same was allowed and he was medically re- examined by the Review Medical Board on 10.04.2010 wherein the said Board again found him unfit on account of the reason(s) assigned in Annexure-1. Aggrieved thereby, he made representation before the Respondent-Inspector General (respondent no.6). The said representation was considered and rejected by a communicated dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure-4). Dissatisfied therewith, the petitioner filed a writ proceeding in this Court vide CWJC No. 12599 of 2010. This Court by a proceeding dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure-5), disposed of the said application. The operative portion thereof culled out in paragraph 5 of the order reads as under:- “In the light of my observation above, I permit the petitioner to represent before the 3 I.G., C.R.P.F. Patna, who should consider the representation after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and if he is satisfied that the opinion of the Review Medical Board has been rendered without considering the report of the three Medical Officers contained in Annexure-6 series then he should pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order.” It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the said order, representation of the petitioner was examined and thereafter he was again permitted to appear before the freshly constituted Review Medical Board for his medical fitness. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Board again examined him and found him unfit for his abnormal gait (Annexure-6). An interlocutory application being I. A. No.6030 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to bring on record certain documents. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application, submits that SSC in the meanwhile again came up with an advertisement in the year 2010 for appointment of personnel(s) including Sub-Inspector (direct entry) for the CRPF. Petitioner was an applicant against the said advertisement. On clearing the physical eligibility test followed by written test, he was subjected to medical fitness test by a Board of doctors whereat he was examined on 4.3.2011. The said Board on examination of his medical fitness, issued a certificate dated 4.3.2011 (Annexure-7) whereby he was found unfit for the sole reason that petitioner was suffering from 4 hepatomegaly. Petitioner got examined himself by the doctor whereafter the said reason was held an error of judgment. Armed with the aforesaid certificate, he filed appeal for subjecting him to Review Medical Board for assessment of his medical fitness. The respondents again constituted a Review Medical Board for his assessment of medical fitness. The petitioner appeared thereat whereafter the said Review Medical Board found him fit. The said document has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to I. A. No. 6030 of 2011. Learned counsel submits that on 04.03.2011, the Medical Board found him unfit only on account of hepatomegaly whereas only 18 days thereafter the Review Medical Board by Annexure-6 again found him unfit for abnormal gait. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the aforesaid disability/ailment of hepatomegaly was also found an error of judgment and respondents themselves certified by issuing Annexure10 that petitioner was fit for the job/service. It is the stand of the petitioner that facts in the present case would eloquently indicate that the view/opinion of the Medical Board at Annexure-6 is wholly and manifestly unjust. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on para 8 thereof which reads as under:- “That in the instant case, the candidate has challenged the report of Revised Medical Board ad is insisting to consider the fitness certificate issued by Civil Hospital through the report of Review Medical Board is final and no appeal lies against the Review 5 Medical Examination. However, on the lines of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the petitioner was got medically examined by a fresh review Medical Board considering of three Group-“A” Medical Officers of the status of Specialist namely a Surgeon, Physician and an ophthalmologist with advance test such as Echo, Radioisotope scanning Ct & MRI etc. on 18.3.2011 at Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi wherein the petitioner were found unfit on account of “Abnormal gait”. Again said petitioner forwarded a representation dated nil, to Directorate and request to conduct fresh Review Medical Examination which was not accepted by the competent authority being devoid of merit as petitioner has already availed two opportunities of Review Medical Examination. Reply on the above lines also communicated to them vide this Directorate letter dated 26.4.2011.” On going through materials on record and after hearing the parties, it appears that the petitioner approached this Court questioning the findings of the Review Medical Board whereafter this Court permitted the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the Inspector General(CRPF). The said authority having been convinced with the stand of the petitioner again permitted him to appear at freshly constituted Review Medical Board whereafter he was found unfit only on account of abnormal gait. The two other disability/ailment were not held sustained by the said Board. It further appears that SSC came out with a fresh advertisement for selection in the year 2010 for recruitment of personnel(s) including S.I.(direct entry) in CRPF. Petitioner was an applicant thereagainst. He cleared the physical eligibility test followed by written test whereafter he was subjected to medical fitness test. The Medical Board vide 6 document placed at Annexure-7, found the petitioner unfit only on account of hepatomegaly which, according to the petitioner, relates to mild liver infection. Petitioner thereafter got a medical fitness certificate for subjecting him to Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board on examination of the petitioner found that he was no longer suffering from hepatomegaly. He was, therefore, found medically fit. The said document is contained in Annexure-10. On 4.3.2011 one Medical Board of the CRPF found the petitioner unfit on account of hepatomegaly whereas another Medical Board examined him only 18 days thereafter under the order of the respondent-Inspector General of the CRPF and found him medically unfit for his abnormal gait. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is unable to accept the finding of the Medical Board at Annexure-6 since only close to three weeks before he was medically examined by the Board of the CRPF whereafter no such ailment/disability of abnormal gait was found. Materials are adequate on record to come to the conclusion that the report of the Medical Board against the advertisement of 2009 holding the petitioner medically unfit as contained in Annexure-6 seems to be wholly erroneous. This Court is thus satisfied that the view taken by the Medical Board as contained in Annexure-6 should not be an obstacle in considering the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of S.I. (direct recruit) in CRPF against the selection process taken up pursuant to the advertisement issued/published in 2009. 7 Let the respondents proceed to consider and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as quickly as possible preferably within eight weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application accordingly stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )