IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2008 of 2009 Between: AZAD SINGH, S/o. Late Dilli Singh, R/o. Village-Baragaur, Post_Baghati(Keolari), Dist.Seoni (M.P) PIn-480994 (Ex.CRPF Constable, Force No.910970261) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of home Affiars, South Block, New Delhi-110 001 2 The Director General of Police, CRPR, CGO Complex, Lodhi road, New Delhi-110 003 3 The Inspector General Of Police, CRPF, Southern Sector Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, CRPF Group Centre, Ranga Reddy, JJ Nagar, Hakimpet, Secunderabad-500 087 5 The Chief Medical Officer, CRPF Composite Hospital, Keshogiri Post, Hyderabad-500 005 6 The Commandant, 90 Battalion, CRPF, C/o. 56 APO(J&K) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARENDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondents:MR. JAGADEESWARA REDDY FOR MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.6 in invalidating the petitioner on medical ground vide Office Order, dated 06.03.2008 without any compensation, Extra Ordinary Pension (EOP) or any kind of financial assistance apart from not considering his case for providing alternative job in accordance with Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Standing Order 7 of 1999, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri Narender Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagadeeshwara Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. The petitioner was a Constable of CRPF. On the basis of the medical review conducted on 11.12.2006 by CMO, CH-Gauhati and on 06.10.2007 by Unit MO (during AME), the petitioner was placed under Shape-3(P) medical category as he was suffering from “Angular Kyphotic deformity due to old POTT’s Spine”. He was finally produced before the Medical Invalidation Board (MIB) constituted at Composite Hospital, CRPF, Hyderabad between 10.11.2007 and 17.11.2007 and was declared permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in consequence of Pott’s Spine D11/D12 Vertebra, Mild kyphosis of dorsolumbar spine. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with one month’s notice on 31.12.2007 to represent against the above-mentioned declaration of MIB, but he did not submit any representation to the said notice. Therefore, an order was passed on 06.03.2008 by respondent No.6 declaring that the petitioner was completely and permanently incapacitated for further retention in service. This order was preceded by service of Form-23 on 07.02.2008 on the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.4 questioning the said order of respondent No.6. Respondent No.4 by his order, dated 07.11.2008 dismissed the appeal. At the hearing, Sri Narender Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the physical disability of the petitioner was only partial i.e. 34%, he is entitled to avail the benefits of Rule 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995. In my considered view, this contention cannot be accepted. After thorough medical examination, the MIB declared the petitioner as permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind. Though an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to file a representation against the said declaration, he has not availed the same. Exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of the declaration of the MIB. In the absence of any mala fides attributed to the members of the said Board, I do not find any reason not to accept the said declaration. It is admitted that if the petitioner is not fit to undertake any alternative employment, he is entitled to receive the invalidation pension under the relevant regulations. If such pension is not already paid to the petitioner, the respondents shall pay the same, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.2528 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2009. kvni