THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 11349 of 2009 O R D E R: With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, I dispose of this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of the order passed on 08.06.2009 by the 1st respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy, Secunderabad, terminating the services of the writ petitioner in accordance with Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,1965. The relevant facts for our purpose are: the writ petitioner has been selected to the post of Constable (General Duty) and accordingly joined the service of the Central Reserved Police Force, an armed force of the Union, on 14.01.2006. He was attached to 184th Battalion and subjected to training at Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy, Secunderabad. The training has commenced from 16.01.2006 and it was to span for 44 continuous weeks. The writ petitioner had completed 41 weeks of the training and half way through the 42nd week of the training, on 12.04.2007, he fell down and sustained a grievous injury to his right leg. He was admitted to the hospital at Group Centre, however, on 14.04.2007, he has been referred to Osmania General Hospital at Hyderabad for better medical attention whereat he was diagnosed to have sustained a fracture to the neck of right femur bone and consequently, he was operated upon for fixing a screw in the broken bone. The screw that was fixed would be removed after three or four years after reexamination of the condition of the unison of the broken bones in the joint. Because of this injury, since the writ petitioner could not complete the left over three weeks of training, he was subjected to examination by the Medical Board, which opined that he was unfit for resuming the basic training. On the basis of this medical opinion, the 1st respondent – Deputy Inspector General has passed the orders terminating the services of the writ petitioner. It is appropriate to notice as to how the Medical Board tendered its opinion “unfit for basic training in CRPF” due to the following reasons: “ He is suffering from fracture neck of femur. 2 years old with cancellous screws insitu which is broken at proximal level, with limb length discrepancy of one cm. In view of the site of fracture with coaxvara deformity with limb length deformity. The candidate is unfit for Basic Training.” Hence, the 1st respondent has invoked Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules for terminating the services of the writ petitioner. It would be appropriate to notice that entertaining this Writ Petition, on 11.06.1999, this Court considered it appropriate to refer the case of the writ petitioner for examination by the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedics, Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, which is a super-specialty hospital run at Hyderabad. Accordingly, a team of doctors at Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, examined the writ petitioner on 13.08.2009 and gave their opinion that the writ petitioner cannot perform heavy duties and strenuous work for the present. In view of the findings of the Medical Board, this Court passed an order on 06.10.2009, suspending the operation of the impugned order to enable the writ petitioner to complete the balance of the training. That order was sought to be vacated by the respondents by moving W.V.M.P.No. 410 of 2010. Considering the material on record, I have passed another order on 06.07.2010 for a specific opinion to be obtained from the Professor of Orthopedics, Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad with regard to the present condition of the writ petitioner and his fitness. Accordingly, a Medical Board was constituted by Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, comprising of Dr. M. Nageswara Rao, Additional Professor, General Medicine, Dr. C. Vijaya Krishna, Associate Professor, Orthopedics, Dr. Suvarna, Assistant Professor, Neurology and Dr. N. Rama Kumari, Assistant Professor of Cardiology. The Medical Board, upon clinical examination and also upon study of the x-rays of the pelvic bones of the writ petitioner, has opined that the fracture sustained by the writ petitioner has been completely united while the screw is still lying in the joints. The Medical Board opined that he needs regular follow up and ultimately, tendered an opinion based upon detailed clinical and radiological examinations, that the writ petitioner is fit for all types of activities. This opinion has been tendered by the Medical Board of the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, as on 09.08.2010. It is therefore, absolutely clear that the fracture sustained by the writ petitioner, while undergoing the last limb of his 44 week training period, has completely been united now and he is otherwise in a fit condition. Therefore, the basis upon which the impugned order has been passed is not available as of now. The writ petitioner is a young person and that the fracture sustained by him having been united, should be in a good and fit condition to resume the training. I have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside the impugned order, as the very basis upon which it is passed is non-existing now. CRPF being an armed force, it should be left to the 1st respondent to decide as to how many more weeks of training is required to be imparted to the writ petitioner, taking into account and consideration the fact that he had already completed 41 weeks of basic training and also the fact that there is an intervention of nearly 3 ½ years since then. Based upon a proper assessment, the writ petitioner shall be permitted to resume the training. The interregnum period between the date on which the impugned order is passed and the writ petitioner will be permitted to resume now should be treated as period not spent on duty but on medical leave on loss of pay. For all practical purposes, the writ petitioner should be treated to have continued to a member of the force from 08.06.2009 onwards as if the impugned order has not been passed. The 1st respondent will take appropriate decision about the quantum of basic training that is needed to be undergone by the writ petitioner and communicate the same by registered post acknowledgment due to his permanent address and also copy marked to the address of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner who appeared in this case. A minimum of 15 days’ time will be provided by the 1st respondent for the writ petitioner to receive the said communication and then report for resumption of the training. It is needless to observe that upon satisfactory completion of the balance training period now likely to be ordered by the 1st respondent, appropriate decision for his enrolment as a full member of the force will be considered. The Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 12th August 2010 ksld