CW 9256/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9256/06 Mahesh Kumar Chechi Versus UOI & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 30/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Rajendra Soni, for petitioner Mr. Tapasvi Vashisth for Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that appeal preferred by him has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents vide order dt.4th October, 2006 only on the premise that it was received unsigned in their office. It appears from the record that petitioner after being selected for the post of Constable [GD] on account of medical unfitness he was not considered for appointment and it is not disputed that appeal has been provided against the report of medical fitness served upon the petitioner and was received in the office of appellate authority. As alleged that since it was unsigned, the same was rejected without examining on merits vide order Ann.6 dt.4th October, 2006. Immediately when this fact came to notice of the petitioner, he served a legal notice Ann.7 dt.1st November, CW 9256/06 [2] 2006 and sent his signed copy of appeal complying with other formalities and requested the authorities to consider his appeal on merits and when no order was passed, he approached this court by filing instant petition. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred in Para 8 that after letter of rejection was passed, in their office signed appeal was received, but according to them it was the signed copy of appeal which has already been rejected by the authority. Infact, petitioner after his signature sent it again to them instead of submitting fresh appeal and on this count alone, respondents have not considered his appeal preferred by him. Under the Scheme of Rules, which has been placed on record by the respondents, right of appeal is available to the incumbent who is found to be medically unfit and once the appeal was received in their office as per the procedure prescribed under the scheme it was expected to examine on merits and not to reject it on technicalities. However, once after passing of letter rejecting his appeal on the premise that it was unsigned, the petitioner rectified his CW 9256/06 [3] mistake and submitted signed appeal may be the copy of earlier appeal in their office. It was incumbent upon the respondents to atleast consider and decide the same in accordance with law on merits and not to stultify right of the petitioner on mere technicalities. Even otherwise substantive right available with the incumbent is not to be frustrated on certain collateral reasons which are not germane in the eye of law. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order rejecting his appeal Ann.6 dt.4th October, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider his appeal and decide the same on merits within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copy of the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner also. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9256CW06 30-1.doc