IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17264 of 2008 Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sri Ram Krishna Singh, a r/o Vill.+P.O.- Bishnupur Ahok, P.S.-Sahappur Kamal, Distt.-Begusarai. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Home Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force having office at Lodhi Road, C.G.O. Complex, Sector-IV, Pushapa Vihar, New Delhi-3. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. having office at Deepa Complex, Patna, Patna-25. 4. The Commandant C.R.P.F. having office at Deepa Complex, Patna, Patna-25. ……Respondents ---------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG, Govt. of India Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, CGC. ---------- 04. 09.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. By order passed on 11th December, 2008 this court granted four weeks time for filing of counter-affidavit. On 23.01.2009 further two weeks time was granted with a condition that if no counter-affidavit is filed within the said period, the writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that in spite of information the concerned respondents could not take required steps and hence it was not possible to file counter-affidavit within time granted earlier. - 2 - As indicated earlier, the parties have been heard and the writ petition is being finally disposed of. By Annexure-2, on 1st February, 2008, petitioner was informed that in connection with recruitment for the post of Constable (Male)-2007 he had been found medically unfit in the medical examination conducted at CRPF Centre at Mokama Ghat on 01.02.2008. The communication discloses that petitioner was found to suffer from three defects. Paragraph 2 of Annexure-2 further discloses that petitioner could appeal against the result of medical test to the DIG (P), CRPF, Patna within one month along with fresh fitness indicating specifically the absence of the defects for which petitioner had been medically rejected. The said clause further provides as follows:- “The fitness must also contain a note by the medical practitioner concerned to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the facts that the candidate has already been rejected as unfit for service by a medical officer”. Admittedly, as appears from impugned order dated 25.07.2008 contained in Annexure-4, petitioner had preferred an appeal against the medical result. However such appeal was rejected on the ground that the medical fitness certificate was not in the prescribed pro forma. On receipt of impugned order rejecting his appeal petitioner preferred this - 3 - writ petition. Through a supplementary affidavit he has showed that now he has a medical fitness certificate in the prescribed pro forma by a qualified doctor to the effect that on 02.02.2009 the doctor has found him free from the disabilities indicated in Annexure-2. This certificate further discloses that the doctor had the knowledge that petitioner had been earlier declared medically unfit for three reasons indicated above. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that for rustic villagers who apply for the post of Constable in CRPF it is not always possible to find out that a pro forma has been prescribed for medical fitness certificate for the purpose of preferring an appeal. It has further been submitted that at least one opportunity should have been granted by the authorities of CRPF to remove the defect in the medical certificate by asking the petitioner to submit medical certificate in the prescribed pro forma. In the facts of the case, this court finds that two different doctors have given certificate that petitioner does not suffer from the three defects which were indicated in Annexure-2. One of the certificates annexed with this supplementary affidavit is by a doctor who has certified that he is aware of the fact that petitioner was declared medically - 4 - unfit for three specific reasons. The purpose of recruitment to any service under the State including police service is to select the best candidates available and to eliminate chances of wrong or arbitrary rejection of candidature. In the present case, this court finds that there is a strong probability of petitioner’s case having been wrongly rejected on ground of three medical defects which do not exist as per opinion of two other doctors. In such circumstances the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider petitioner’s appeal against medical rejection in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order before respondent no. 3, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)