IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14413 of 2010 Sandip Kumar son of Ram Thirth Singh, resident of village + P.O. Belawan, P.S. Barbigha, District Sheikhpura Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Government of India Home Department, New Delhi 2. The Director General, C.R.P.F., C.G.O. Complex, N. Block, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. The Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna-25 4. The D.I.G. of Police Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur 5. The Commandant, Recruitment Board at G.C., Muzaffarpur ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the Union of India :Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha, CGC 02/ 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable (G.D.) in the C.R.P.F. His candidature was rejected on medical grounds vide unfitness certificate dated 17.1.2010, Annexure-2 finding that his vision is defective in both the eyes i.e. 6/9, four molar tooth absent and he is hypertensive 150/100 mg. with liberty to prefer appeal before the Review Medical Board along with certificate of the Medical Practitioner that he does not suffer from aforesaid ailments. Petitioner appeared before the Medical Officer, Munger Sadar Hospital on 28.1.2010 and was examined as is evident from the certificate, Annexure-3. Perusal whereof indicates that petitioner does 2 not suffer from any defective vision or the other ailment. On the basis of certificate Annexure-3, petitioner appeared for review medical examination on 24.2.2010 when he was examined at Delhi by the Doctors of the Force who found him fit so far his eye sight is concerned. The Report of the Doctors finding the petitioner fit so far his eye sight is concerned is also annexed with the counter affidavit. After being declared fit so far eye sight is concerned, petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Board for his further examination at Composite Hospital, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur on 14.4.2010 when his four molar teeth were found absent and he was further found hypertensive 150/100 mg. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Doctors with regard to his eye sight recorded earlier on 17.1.2010 was found incorrect by the Doctors of the C.R.P.F. itself , there is no presumption about the correctness of the other finding that he is hypertensive and his case should also be considered by the same Medical Board, which was constituted under letter dated 6.9.2010 by the Deputy Commandant (Legal) serving in the office of the I.G., C.R.P.F., Patna. 3 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union as also having perused the report of the Review Medical Board and the earlier reports, I deem it expedient to direct that the case of the petitioner be also considered by the Review Medical Board constituted by the Deputy Commandant (Legal) under letter dated 6.9.2010 and date of his examination be fixed by the Deputy Commandant (Legal) in consultation with the officers of the Review Medical Board, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Deputy Commandant (Legal) serving in the office of the I.G., C.R.P.F., Patna. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)