IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.939 of 2008 ***** Ranjit Kumar Singh son of Late Bimal Prasad Singh resident of village-Pithaghat Baikunthpur, Post Office Rahampur, Police Station Garkha, District Saran at Chapra. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Sasahtra Seema Bal, R.R.B.B., S.S.B. S.H.O. Barauni (Bihar). …. …. Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C. ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. N. Singh -------- Dated, the 1st December, 2008. Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of 24 days, for which an application (I.A. No. 7052 of 2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, we are of the view that the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was found medically unfit by the Board constituted in the physical examination. The medical report vide memo. dated 17th December, 2005 records that the appellant has been medically examined on that date and he - 2 - was found unfit due to the following reasons: “1. Hyper estensibility elbows 2. Cubitus Valgug (Cross on left) 3. Drooping right shoulder.” 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the medical unfitness on the ground that he got himself medically examined from Medical Practitioner, Dr. Arjun Singh, and he has found him medically fit and, therefore, re-medical examination be ordered. On 7th February, 2006, the petitioner was informed to report at the office of the Deputy Inspector General, S.S.B., Station Headquarters, Barauni, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. on 6th March, 2006 at 9 hours to appear before the Board for review medical examination. There is nothing on record to show that in review medical examination he has been found fit. 4. In this view of the matter, consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not call for any interference. 5. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed accordingly. 6. This disposes of I.A. No.7052 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ J. N. Singh, J Pawan/-