AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3263 OF 2009 Vidhate Bhausaheb Pandurang ... Petitioner Vs. The Additional D.I.G.P., Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), Talegaon Dabhade & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.B. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Shettey with Mr. Ajay Patil and Mr. N.P. Prajapati for Union of India. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Head Constable (G.D.). It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was appointed by appointment letter dated 22/9/2005 for the post of Head Constable (G.D). According to the petitioner, after selection, he was sent for further training to AJN 2 Khatkhati, Assam and during the training period, he sustained injuries on the left hand and on the left shoulder. According to him, he resumed the training after a period of four months and he was asked to go through the review medical examination. On 23/11/2006, on the basis of the review medical report, the services of the petitioner were terminated. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not given any notice and no reasons were given for termination. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition praying that his termination be set aside. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. He has reiterated the averments made in the petition. It is not possible for us to accept any of his submission. The termination is dated 23/11/2006. The petitioner has challenged it in the year 2009. There is no proper explanation for the delay in approaching this court. Apart from that, learned counsel for the respondents has informed us that the petitioner's AJN 3 appointment was temporary and was subject to the medical fitness. Learned counsel has denied the submission made by the petitioner that the petitioner sustained injuries during the training. In any case, he submitted that since the appointment was temporary and was subject to the medical fitness and since on review medical examination, the petitioner was found medically unfit, his services were terminated. 3. We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. The termination order clearly recites the reasons for termination. If the appointment was temporary and subject to medical fitness and if the petitioner was found medically unfit on review examination, it is not possible for us to quash the termination order and force the services of the petitioner on a force like Central Reserve Force. It is not possible for us to interfere with the order of termination. However, our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the respondents to Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services AJN 4 Temporary Service Rules (for short, “the said Rules”). Under Rule 5(2) of the said Rules, where a notice is given by the Appointing Authority terminating services of a temporary Government servant, or where the service of any such Government servant is terminated either on the expiry of the period of such notice or forthwith by payment of pay plus allowance, the Central Government or any other authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf or a Head of Department, if the said authority is subordinate to him, may, of its own motion or otherwise, re-open the case, and after making such enquiry as it deems fit, inter alia, confirm the action taken by the Appropriate Authority, withdraw the notice, reinstate the Government servant in service or make such other order in the case as it may consider proper. 4. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner has sent any representation to the respondents as per Rule 5(2) of the said Rules. Learned counsel stated that no such representation is submitted. AJN 5 He stated that the petitioner will submit a representation to the respondents as per Rule 5(2) of the said Rules within two months from today. If such representation is submitted, the respondents will consider it in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by us in this order. All contentions of both sides are kept open. 5. Mr. Shettey learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the Union of India within two weeks from today. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]