WP(C) 1085/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J. Hud a, learned Central Govt. Counsel who represents the respondents. The present case has been filed by the petitioner, who had offered his candidatu re for recruitment as a CRPF constable, to challenge the rejection of his candid ature on the ground that he was found medically unfit on the ground of being fla t footed. As permitted by the Rules, the petitioner sought a second medical re-e xamination and the same was conducted on 3.10.07, where the Medical Board consis ting Doctors under CRPF reiterated the earlier medical opinion that the petition er is medically unfit due to flat foot. In pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 3.5.09, Ms. J. Huda, learned Central Govt. Counsel produces the instruction dated 30.3.03 received by her fr om the Office of the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati. On perusal of the said communication, it is seen that none of the three medical officers, who conducted a second medical examination on 3.10.07 on the petitione r, was an Orthopaedic Specialist. The petitioner got himself examined earlier by the Doctors at the GMC Hospital a nd it is seen from the medical certificate dated 7.6.07 (Annexure-’C’) that the Doctors in the GMC opined that the petitioner is not having any flat foot defor mity . This opinion is recorded after examination of the petitioner by the Regis trar of the Department of Orthopaedic and also by an Associate Professor of the Department of Orthopaedic. In the context of the above conflicting medical opinion it is difficult for this Court to conclude either way, on the status of medical fitness of the petitione r, to be recruited as a constable under the CRPF. Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the jud gment of this Court dated 25.3.08 in W.P.(C) No. 511/08 in the case of Baikuntha Rajbongshi vs. Union of India, where in similar circumstances, this Court order ed for a further medical examination of the petitioner by a team consisting of a n Orthopaedic Surgeon. But it was left to the discretion of the CRPF authorities to decide as to whether the medical team to re-examine the petitione, should be from the Medical College or from the Civil Hospital or from the Specialist Doct ors of the CRPF. In this decided case also, the Court was dealing with the case of a candidate, who was declared medically unfit on the ground of, inter alia, h aving flat foot. Having regard to the facts of the instant case and also the case decided by this Court on 25.3.08, I find that there is no substantial difference to distinguish the present case from one already decided by the Court. In this case also, ther e is no Orthopaedic Specialist amongst the medical team who examined the petitio ner on 3.10.07 and took an adverse view that the petitioner is not medically fit to be recruited as a constable in the CRPF. But the opinion of the Specialist O rthopaedic Doctors of the GMC given on 7.6.07 clearly gives a contrary view, sta ting that the petitioner is not having any flat foot problem.. In view of the above facts and also having regard to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Baikuntha Rajbongshi (supra), I am of the considered opini on that the present case should also be disposed of by directing a further medic al examination of the petitioner by a team consisting of Orthopaedic Specialist. Such re-examination be done by the Medical Team to be constituted appropriately by the CRPF authorities, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Depending on the outcome of the fresh medical examination, the CRPF authorities are directed to take further steps in the matter of recruitment of the petition er, as may be justified by law. This petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage, on the consent for such disposal, by the counsels appearing for both the parties . A copy of communication dated 30.3.03 received by Ms. J. Huda, learned CGC is ke pt in the records of this case.