WP(C) 4023/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Goswami, learned CGC. The petitioner is the aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF is agg rieved by rejection of his candidature on the ground of being medically unfit. H is case having been rejected on medical ground, he had preferred an appeal for c onsideration of Review Medical Board. Accordingly, the same was constituted and the Review Medical Board also found the petitioner medically unfit. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the medical unfitness of the petitioner has been stated to be due to i) Frontal Dental Opposition not required on out of 06; ii) Carrying angle obliterated; iii) Trouser hand present ; and iv) Haemorrhoids The petitioner was called for physical efficiency test on 16.02.2009 an d thereafter he had appeared in the written test on 26.02.2009 followed by medic al examination on 08.04.2009. According to the respondents, during such medical examination he was found unfit for the post of Constable (GD). Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority for review medical ex amination. In acceptance of the appeal, a review medical examination was conduct ed on 27.03.2010 by a Medical Board. In the review examination also the petition er was found unfit due to Front dental opposition not as per requirement . Accordingly, the report/opinion of the Medical Board was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.08.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the medical examin ation of the petitioner including the review medical examination was conducted w ithout association of an Specialist in the subject, the case of the petitioner i s required to be reconsidered in association with a Specialist having specialisa tion in the area in which the petitioner has been declared to be medically unfit . Ms. R. Goswami, learned CGC on the other hand submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was twice medically examined, but was found unf it, there is no question of conducting any further medical examination in associ ation with a specialist Doctor. In this connection, she has referred to the subm ission made in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit. Considering the matter in its entirety and to quell any doubt, it is her eby provided that the petitioner may be re-examined in association with a specia list Doctor in the field. Let the medical examination in association with the sa id Doctor be carried out as expeditiously as possible preferably within 30.06.20 11. Whatever may be the outcome of the re-examination, same shall be communicate d to the petitioner.