IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16773 of 2008 2 10.2.2009 Rupesh Kumar Jha son of Sri Prabha Jha, resident of village- Kola Narayanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, P.O.- Danda Bazar (via- Mirzanhat), District Bhagalpur ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Union of India 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, CPO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokamaghat, Bihar 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Digha Complex, Pana 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri (Jharkhand) 7. Medical Officer, Recruitment Board, Ofice of the Dy.I.G. of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri (Jharkhand) ... RESPONDENTS ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : JC to Mr Sudhir Singh, ASG ------ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents representing Union of India and the officers of the Central Reserve Police Force. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure-7, a communication dated 28.8.2008 from the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, DPR at GC, CRPF, Sindri whereby petitioner has been informed that in the review/ re- medial examination conducted at Sindri on 27.8.2008 he has again been found medically unfit due to Bilateral Hydrocele. Further prayer on behalf of the petitioner is to direct the 2 respondent no.5, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Digha Complex, Patna to constitute another review board for medical review of petitioner’s case on account of special and peculiar facts of this case. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner on being successful in the ongoing recruitment process with effect from 20.10.2007 for the post of constable/ GD (Male) 2007, was called for medical examination at Mokamaghat on 27.2.2008. He was declared medically unfit due to Bilateral Hydrocele . According to petitioner, on 8.3.2008 he got himself treated surgically and the defect was cured and on the basis of valid medical evidence of fitness dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-5), petitioner sought a review of his medical examination result and the same was allowed by directing the petitioner to appear for medical review/ reexamination at Sindri, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) on 27.8.2008 vide Annexure-6. Again by a communication dated 28.8.2008, contained in Annexure-7 petitioner was informed that the medical board consisting of two doctors had found him unfit due to the same reasons i.e. Bilateral Hydrocele. Petitioner claims that he got himself thoroughly examined and on the advice of doctor he underwent Ultrasonography (USG) of Scrotum on 12.9.2008 and according to doctors even the Sonography suggested normal 3 testicles and no hydrocele was present. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his representation to various authorities after review has not been given any heed. It was further submitted that even in the counter affidavit there is no specific pleading as to on what basis the review board rejected the medical evidence submitted by the petitioner that he had got himself treated and cured and there was no defect of Bilateral Hydrocele as per certificate dated 17.3.2008. It was submitted that most scientific method of investigation through Ulstrasonography also supports the claim of the petitioner and hence, this Court should interfere in the matter on the ground that reliable evidence available with the petitioner shows that he is not medically unfit on account of Bilateral Hydrocele and the result of the review or remedical is fit to be reconsidered in absence of any scientific basis disclosed to support the rejection of petitioner’s appeal. On proper consideration of all materials and the relevant facts, this Court finds that as a young man petitioner’s candidature for post of constable in CRPF deserves to be considered with due seriousness and medical rejection should not be without proper scientific basis. In that view of the matter, the result of the Medical Board as contained in Anenxure-7 dated 28.8.2008 is quashed and the matter is 4 remitted back to respondent no.5, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Digha Complex, Patna to reconstitute a Board of medical officers for fresh review/ re-medical examination of the petitioner at an early date, preferably within a month from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the Medical Board reconstituted to examine the petitioner, shall take care to test the petitioner in respect of defect of Bilateral Hydrocele through scientific methods as are commonly available today. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk