WP(C) 109/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr B. Sarmah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents . Considering the grievance raised in the writ petition and also as agreed to by t he learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the adm ission stage itself. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that pursuant to a recruitment rally held on 28.7.2008 at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School at Dimapur, the petitio ner was provisionally selected for the post of General Duty Clerk at Assam Rifle s and accordingly a provisional appointment letter was issued on 17.10.2008 sub ject to finding him fit in final medical test conducted at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School at Dimapur. Accordingly, as directed, the petitioner reported before the authority on 12.11.2008 for medical test. In the meanwhile, the peti tioner was given various training combatised and non-combatised at Assam Rifles Training Centre and School at Dimapur but on 13.12.2008 Medical Officer of the A ssam Rifles Training Centre and School at Dimapur declared the petitioner perma nently unfit for job and issued a permanently unfit certificate due to Colour Vi sion CP-4 (Defective Unsafe) and thereby discharged the petitioner from service. The said certificates (Annexure ’D’ to the writ petition) is under challenge in the instant writ petition. The challenge made on the ground that the petitioner after discharge from Service as aforesaid appeared before the Opthalmology Dep artment, Gauhati Medical College Hospital wherein he was examined thoroughly by 3 (three) Specialists who issued him certificate that he was normal with respect to Colour Vision. The said certificate has been annexed as Annexure ’F’ to the writ petition. Hence, the instant writ petition for quashing and setting aside t he impugned medical certificate declaring him permanently unfit in respect of Co lour Vision (Annexure ’D’ to the writ petition issued by the respondent No. 4) w ith a further prayer to the respondent authorities for accepting the certificate issued by the Gauhati Medical College Hospital (Annexure ’F’) to be valid and therefore take back the petitioner in Service. Mr Chakraborty, learned CGC has submitted that a detailed affidavit-in-oppositio n has been filed in the case wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitio ner without exhausting the remedy available to him by way of filing an appeal be fore the appropriate authority has approached this Court directly. When the prov ision for appeal is available, the petitioner ought to have exhausted the remedy before approaching this court. He further submits that the medical certificate dated 3.1.2009 issued by the Regional Institute of Opthelmology is not in accord ance with para 50 of Appendix E to Compendium on Conduct of Recruitment Rallies (Recruitment Rallies for short), inasmuch as, the certificate issued by the GMCH authority does not reflect exhaustment in details. Mr Chakraborty has fairly submitted before the court that the petitioner may eve n now file an appeal as per provisions laid down in the Recruitment Rallies and upon filing of such an appeal, the authority shall dispose of the appeal as per provision laid down in the aforesaid Recruitment Rallies. In view of the submissions so made and considering the matter in its entirety, a lso for the ends of justice, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a di rection to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authori ty as per provision laid down in paragraph 94 of the Recruitment Rallies (Editio n March, 2008) and upon filing of such an appeal the authority shall convene an Appeal Medical Board within a period of two weeks from the date of submission o f the appeal. The authority may also incorporate in the Board a Specialist from the State Government Civil Hospital. It is also made clear that the decision of the Medical Board shall be communicated forthwith to the petitioner in his given address by registered post with A/D and/or by hand. If the petitioner is aggrie ved by the decision so taken by the authority he has the liberty to approach thi s Court again. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.