IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7248 of 2010 BINAY KUMAR PRASAD S/O LATE KRISHNA PRASAD R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S. MASRAKH, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 844 101 3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F. E.C. RAILWAY, DANAPUR 4. THE CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR ----------- 03. 30.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force, pursuant to advertisement published in the employment news dated 25.3.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 to this application. His candidature appears to have been rejected on medical grounds, whereafter he preferred appeal vide memorandum dated 15.9.2006, Annexure-5, perusal whereof indicates that in support of his medical fitness he relied on the certificate granted by the medical officers of the I.G.I.M.S. and P.M.C.H., Patna. Request of the petitioner for being examined by the Review Medical Board made under memorandum dated 15.9.2006, Annexure-5 was considered under letter dated 29.11.2006, Annexure-6 and he was asked to appear before the Special Opthalmic Medical Board at Divisional Railway Hospital, Danapur on 6.12.2006 at 11.00 hours. In response to the aforesaid instruction dated 29.11.2006 petitioner appeared before the Special Board but his candidature was rejected and rejection has been communicated under letter dated 17.1.2007, Annexure-6/1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while - 2 - examining his case the Review Medical Board did not consider the certificate granted by the medical officers of the I.G.I.M.S. and P.M.C.H., Patna, which is evident from the report dated 17.1.2007, Annexure-6/1. Petitioner thereafter again requested the Medical Board to reconsider the matter on two occasion but both request have been rejected under report dated 8.3.2007 and 30.5.2008, Annexures-7 and 7/1. The present application has been filed on 23.4.2010 asserting that while rejecting the case of the petitioner for fitness, the Review Medical Board did not consider the certificate granted by the medical officers of the I.G.I.M.S. and P.M.C.H., Patna. From perusal of the report dated 17.1.2007, 8.3.2007 and 30.5.2008, Annexures-6/1, 7 and 7/1 it is evident that the certificates granted to the petitioner by the medical officers of the I.G.I.M.S. and P.M.C.H., Patna has not been considered but the question remains that if the certificate granted by the medical officers of the I.G.I.M.S. and P.M.C.H., Patna was not considered by the authorities of the Review Medical Board in 2007, petitioner should have approached this Court in 2007 and not after three years of such rejection. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)