IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1501 of 2009 DEEPAK KUMAR MISHRA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 19/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the opposite parties. There were two medical reports in favour of the petitioner and one against him. The Writ Court therefore directed reconciliation of the conflicting reports. The interpretation being given by the petitioner that a fresh medical assessment was prohibited and only a reconciliation of the three reports was required, cannot be rejected as devoid of reason and logic. Simultaneously, the stand of the opposite parties that as per their understanding nothing prohibited them from constituting a fresh medical report for reconciliation of the issue cannot be faulted with on basis of the actions of a reasonable prudent understanding. The contempt application is therefore disposed with the direction that in the fresh Board to be constituted the Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Rehabilitation (who submitted report dated 4.10.2005 and in case he has superannuated the present incumbent of the office), the Chairman of the - 2 - Medical Board which submitted the report dated 17.5.2008 and the chairman of the Medical Board which assessed the petitioner on 4.10.2005 shall replace him shall necessarily be a part along with such others that the Government may nominate. The contempt application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)