Madras High Court
T.Chellapandian vs The Chairman on 25 July, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.07.2012
Coram
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.No.12401 of 2007
(O.A.No.3310 of 2002)
T.Chellapandian .. Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1.The Chairman
T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Indira Nagar, Chennai 20.
2. The Director General of Police,
Chennai 5.
3.The Secretary to Govt.
Home Police Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
... Respondents
Prayer:- This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 3310 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for 2nd medical test as per the Medical Code and further direct the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and grant him all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Venkataramani, SC
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr. R.Vijayakumar, AGP
O R D E R
The petitioner has qualification of S.S.L.C. but failed in Plus Two examination. The petitioner belongs to backward community. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
2 The petitioner cleared the physical test and also declared Pass in the written examination. The petitioner after passing in the written examination, was also subjected to medical examination where he was declared medically unfit due to error of refraction of both eyes.
3 The petitioner has challenged the order rejecting his candidature on medical ground by submitting that the petitioner was only suffering myopia which was subsequently got corrected.
4 It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the correction of defect of vision, there was no reason to deny appointment to the petitioner. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that the respondents failed to constitute second Medical Board to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment.
5 The petitioner has not placed any rules or instructions which entitled the petitioner for referring him to second medical board. The petitioner has also not placed on record any application which may have been filed by the petitioner for referring him to second medical board by questioning the decision of the medical board.
6 On consideration, this Court find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was rejected not on account of myopia, but due to refraction of both eyes (colour projection) which is incurable.
7 It cannot be disputed that the respondent No.3 was bound by the report of the medical board, and in absence of candidate being declared medically fit, no appointment can be offered to him.
8 For the reason best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged the order rejecting his candidature medically, but has only prayed for direction to the respondents to select and appoint him by sending him for medical test as per medical code.
VINOD K.SHARMA, J.
vaan However, no medical code has been placed on record, nor provisions reproduced in pleadings.
No merit. Dismissed. No costs.
25.07.2012
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
To
1.The Chairman
T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Indira Nagar, Chennai 20.
2. The Director General of Police,
Chennai 5.
3.The Secretary to Govt.
Home Police Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
W.P.No.12401 of 2007
25.07.2012