IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19161 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.08.2011 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner applied for being appointed as Constable Indo Tibetan Border Police Force at New Delhi against 14 vacancies for General category. The petitioner appeared for physical test and written test where he qualified. The petitioner was called for medical examination on 13.07.2010. Detailed medical examination was conducted and the petitioner was declared unfit because of enlarged tonsils. The rejection slip was handed over to the petitioner and he was informed that he had a right to appeal. The petitioner had undergone Tonsillectomy for enlarged tonsil on 24.07.2010 in Civil Hospital, Ambala City and, thereafter, had filed appeal for his medical examination. The prayer of the petitioner for entertaining the appeal was rejected on the ground that it was not in accordance with the instructions. The petitioner has referred to some of the cases where rejection slip was issued on Civil Writ Petition No. 19161 of 2010 -2- similar ground and the person had undergone an operation and thereafter had filed appeal against the order of rejection on medical ground. The petitioner, however, is denied similar benefit without disclosing any reason. Except for stating that the petitioner has undergone operation and that his appeal is not as per the instructions on 08.09.2010 (Annexure R-1), no reasons are disclosed as to why this appeal would not be maintainable. The assertion that some of the similarly situated persons were re-examined after they are undergone operations, also is not disputed or denied. It may be true that the respondents are to see whether the candidates are fit for appointment or not but once they had made a provision for appeal and had intimated that the petitioner can file an appeal against the order, the action of the respondents in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to entertain the appeal does not sound fair. This is especially so, when no viable reason is disclosed in the petition for not entertain the appeal. I find that this limited prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to entertain the appeal and determine whether the petitioner is fit or unfit for employment. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on the merits. It will be entirely in the discretion of the respondents to ascertain whether the petitioner is medically fit for appointment or not. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. August 16, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE