WA 341/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue forma l notice to the respondents. The appellant, Manipur Institute of Technology, Imphal, Manipur (for short, here inafter referred to as ’the Institute’) is in appeal against the order dated 20. 10.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 431/2011 directing its P rincipal to allow the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner to submit the required medical certificate of fitness in Form No. 5 contemplated under Rule 20(3) of th e CCS Leave Rules, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules’) issu ed by the attending doctor declaring his fitness for the service in which he is engaged and thereafter allow him to resume his duties. The respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner has approached this Court at its Imphal Be nch with WP(C) No. 431/2011 seeking inter alia a direction to the appellant Inst itute to allow him to join his duties with effect from 24.2.2011 and release all consequential benefits. According to him, while he was serving as a Lecturer in the Institute he suffered from B.P. stroke in the month of February, 2010 for w hich he had to take admission in RIMS Hospital, Imphal on 18.2.2010 for treatmen t. On his discharge from the hospital on 26.2.2010 he was advised bed rest for t hirty days. He was thereafter advised further treatment till 20.12.2010. On the basis of the medical advice so rendered, he was allowed to go on medical leave i n phases as set out in the writ petition. On the expiry of his leave he submitte d an application on 24.2.2011 with the Institute along with his joining report. However, as his request was not responded to in he affirmative, he unsuccessfull y submitted a representation on 31.5.2011 and, thereafter, approached this Court seeking the relief as indicated hereinabove. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has directed the Institute to al low the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner to submit the required medical certific ate of fitness in Form-5 under Rule 20(3) of the Rules signed by the doctor in s upport of the medical report accompanying his joining report already submitted a nd then allow him to resume his duties. Mr. Singh referring to the letter dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-C/4 to the appeal p etition) has submitted that as meanwhile the Principal of the appellant Institut e has sought for a second opinion from the Manipur State Medical Board about the authenticity or otherwise of the ailment referred to in the medical report/ cer tificate submitted by the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner, the interim directi on as made by the learned Single Judge ought to be interfered with. He has submi tted further that in view of the impending examinations and the temporary arrang ement made vis-a-vis the post held by the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner as w ell, the direction to allow him (respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner) to join shou ld be kept in abeyance. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the materials on record, we do not feel persuaded to sustain the above pleas. The r ecords reveal that meanwhile in terms of the earlier order the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner has submitted a medical certificate in Form No. 5 issued by the attending doctor who had earlier issued the certificate annexed to his joining r eport. Mr. Singh points out that the medical certificate in Form No. 5 now issue d is apparently with retrospective effect. Be that as it may, in our comprehension as the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner has already submitted a medical certificate in the prescribed form issued by th e attending doctor, it would not be appropriate at this stage to interfere with the order impugned. In our view, the appellant institute should permit the respo ndent no. 1/ writ petitioner to join his service subject to the medical opinion furnished by the Manipur State Medical Board as sought for by the letter dated 3 1.10.2011 as above. It is ordered accordingly. As the writ petition is pending a decision on merits, for obvious reasons we ref rain from making any further observation. The learned Single Judge would, needle ss to say, pass appropriate orders on this aspect, if need be depending on the d evelopments subsequent hereto. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms. No costs