IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15116 of 2006 Uma Shankar Singh, S/o Shri Ganesh Singh resident of Village- Barnaun Ke Uttari Mathiyan, P.O. Barnaun, P.S. Ajar (Jagdishpur), District- Bhojpur ----------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. New Delhi. 3. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 4. The Group Commandant, Group Centre, Mokama Ghat, Patna, Bihar. 5. The Chief Medical Officer, (N. F.I.G), 136 B.N. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Mokamaghat, Patna, Bihar ------- Respondents. ------------ 4. 15.10.2008 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra for the petitioner and Dr. Ratan Kumar for the respondents. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment as constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as „C.R.P.F.‟). He raises a grievance before this Court that he was fit to be appointed but has unjustly been denied the appointment. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India has also placed before me the original records as well as a copy of the Recruitment Manual of the C.R.P.F. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner had crossed the earlier stages of the recruitment 2 process and was subjected to medical test. On examination of his eyes it was found that he had eye defective vision, namely, left eye 6/18, and right eye 6/24. A photo copy of the information regarding medical unfitness dated 30.5.2006 (Annexure 1) was communicated to the petitioner which, inter alia, stated that he had right to appeal, if request was made within a period of one month. The petitioner exercised his right of appeal of medical check-up and was subjected to the second round of eye test on 24.10.2006, which certified that “unfit due to distance vision 6/9 in both the eyes”. According to the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Manual, the candidate should have eye sight and “ the minimum distance vision should be 6/6 and 6/9 of two eyes without correction i.e. without wearing of glasses”. It is evident that the petitioner‟s vision of the two eyes falls short of the minimum requirement which provides that the minimum distance vision should be 6/6 in one eye, and 6/9 in other eye. On the other hand, the petitioner‟s vision is 6/9 in both the eyes. It is thus evident that the petitioner was not selected for appointment for a valid reason. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)