WP(C) 1600/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI The writ petition is directed against the letter dated 17.3.2009(Annexure-F) to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was informed by the authorities that be cause of Varicose Veins (LT) Legs, Varicocele (LT) Side of Scrotum and Clubbing of Both Hands , he was found unfit to be appointed to the post of Constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force(for short, CRPF). The petitioner had approached this court earlier by means of a writ pet ition registered as WP(C) 1663/08 and this Court by an order dated 28.11.08 disp osed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the CRPF authority to co nstitute a Medical Board and to re-examine the matter. The factual matrix of the case leading to institution of the WP(C) 1663/08 is spelt out in the order date d 28.11.08, and, therefore, the order dated 28.11.2008 is reproduced herein belo w in its entirety: Heard Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. B. Das, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respo ndents. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that tho ugh he has been issued with the order of appointment dated 25-03-2008 for the po st of Constable/GD he has not been allowed to join his services. The further cas e of the petitioner is that initially though he was selected for that purpose an d his name appears in the select list prepared, his candidature was not consider ed due to non-submission of Annexure -III certificate. The petitioner alongwith others approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4864/07, which writ petition was dis posed of vide order dated 23-11-2007 directing the respondent authorities to fix a date for submission of Annexure - III certificate and to consider his case fo r selection and consequential appointment. In terms of the direction contained t herein, the petitioner has submitted the Annexure-III certificate but though he has been offered with the appointment he has not been allowed to join. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ pe tition has contended that the authority has committed inadvertent mistake in iss uing the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 25-03-2008 as he was medically fo und to be unfit for appointment by the Medical Officer, who examined him in cour se of the selection process. The petitioner has not challenged such averment mad e in the affidavit-in-opposition by filing any reply affidavit. Mrs. Das, the learned Central Government counsel has produced the rel evant records of the medical examination of the petitioner before this Court for perusal from where it appears that during the process of selection, the petitio ner was medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Central Reserve Police Force on 17-05-2007 and he was medically found to be unfit for appointment as Co nstable/GD. There is no question of appointing any person to the post of Constab le/GD unless he is medically found to be fit for that purpose. It appears that t he authority has committed an inadvertent error in issuing the order of appointm ent dated 25-03-2008 though he was medically found to be unfit on 17-05-2007. Be that as it may as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, t he present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the CRPF authority t o constitute a Medical Board and to re-examine the petitioner. The authority sha ll intimate the petitioner about the date fixed for that purpose, on which date the petitioner shall make himself available for the medical examination. In the event the Medical Board finds the petitioner fit for appointment, the petitioner shall be allowed to join his duties as Constable. GD pursuant to the offer of a ppointment dated 25-03-2008. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of two mo nths from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost. In terms of the order dated 28.11.08, the respondent authoriti es issued a letter dated 13.2.2009 directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for his re-examination. The letter dated 17.3.09 is the outcome o f such re- examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board on 13.3.09 pursuan t to the letter dated 13.2.09. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. B. Pathak, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the res pondents. Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 9 of the affid avit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitio ner submits that the Medical Board which examined the petitioner on 13.3.09 did not have a specialist doctor to conduct the medical examination for the alleged decease/unfitness with which the petitioner was found afflicted with by the Boar d. 1st para of paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition is releva nt for the purpose and the same is reproduced herein below : 9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 o f the writ petition, the answering respondents state that recruitment in CRPF is strictly carried out according to Rules and Regulations which include physical and health conditions. The petitioner was given a chance for re-medical examinat ion on 13.3.2009 when he was re-examined by a board of Medical Officers consisti ng Dr. Nandini Devi Elangbam, SMO, ENT Specialist, Dr. Joyce Chara, CMO (OG), Ge neral Physician and Dr. S. Manoharan, CMO (SG). Psychiatrist. The review medical board again found the petitioner to be medically unfit due to 1. Varicose Vein s (lt) Legs, 2. Varicocele (lt) side of scrotum clubbing of both hands. The resu lt of the said re-examination was conveyed to the petitioner. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents submits that th e Medical Board which examined the petitioner on 13.3.09 did not have a special ist doctor in general surgery and as such, the respondents would conduct another medical examination of the petitioner with a medical board which would also inc lude a specialist doctor in general surgery. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specia list doctor in general surgery is only competent to assess the decease and/or un fitness of the petitioner and accordingly, he does not object to the prayer made by the learned Central Government Counsel. Mr. Roy has also submitted that he had obtained instruction from the pe titioner that the petitioner would be able to appear in the medical examination within a period of 10 days from today. In consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the partie s, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorit ies to constitute a Medical Board which shall invariably consist of a specialist doctor in general surgery to examine the petitioner. Mr. Pathak says that there is no difficulty in constituting the Medical Board to examine the petitioner wi thin a period of ten days from today. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to report to the re spondent No. 5, i.e. the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Gr oup Centre, 9th Mile Amerigog, Guwahati on 14.11.2011 at 10 O’clock and it will be the responsibility of the aforesaid Additional Deputy Inspector General of Po lice, CRPF, to take the petitioner to the Medical Board for his examination. The respondent No. 5 shall also communicate the decision of the Medical Board to th e petitioner. Needless to say, that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may be at liberty to take recourse to such remedies as may be available in law. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions.