Letters Patent Appeal No.1003 OF 2001 (Against the Judgment and Order dated 29th June, 2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3735 of 2001) 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 2. The President Central Airmen Selection Board Brar Square, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi. 3. The Wing Commander, 01/C Testing and Enrolment CASB, Brar Square, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10. 4. The Wing Commander Medical Adviser, CASB, Brar Square, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-10 5. The Squadron Leader, D.I.G. Enrolment, Central Airman Selection Board, New Delhi-10. 6. The Squadron Leader/Officer Commanding No. 10 Airman Selection Centre, Bihta, Patna. 7. The Squadron Leader, R.M.O., ASC-10, Bihta, Patna. --------------------(Appellants) Versus KUMAR ANAND MISHRA, S/o Shri Abhay Kant Mishra, R/o Mh. Chhoti Daulatpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamalpur. ----------------(Respondents) ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh. For the Respondent : Mr. Khurshid Alam & Mr. R.S. Choudhary. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA Barin Ghosh & S.K. Sharma, JJ. Heard both the parties. In the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner challenged the Re-medical Examination Certificate dated 19th 2 December, 2000 and the letter dated 30th January, 2001 by which he was informed that his appeal before the Medical Board against the Certificate of unfitness will not be considered because on 14th January, 2001, he had crossed the age of 20 and thereby became over-aged for enrolment as an Airman. By the Judgment and Order under appeal, the writ petition was allowed on 29th June, 2001 and accordingly, the decisions, aforesaid, were quashed. The Judgment and Order under appeal further directed the appellants to consider the petitioner’s appeal filed within the permissible age of enrolment and to enroll the petitioner, if the appeal succeeds, notionally treating him to be a candidate of the batch with which he was required to undergo training had he been found medically fit at the time when he was originally declared medically unfit. The present appeal, though, was filed on 12th September, 2001 but the appellants could not obtain stay of the Judgment and Order under appeal. The prayer for stay was specifically refused on 7th February, 2002 by the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, the appeal of the 3 respondent-petitioner was heard on merits and he was found medically fit and accordingly, the original declaration that the respondent-petitioner is medically unfit stood removed. He, accordingly, became entitle to be appointed. He was, as we have been told, accordingly, appointed and upon such appointment, he is serving as an Airman. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal, inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner was preferred within the permissible age by which the petitioner could be appointed as an Airman and thereupon petitioner had no role to play in the matter of expediting the hearing of the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, 19th December, 2008 S.B.P./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)