Patna High Court - Orders
Ajeet Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 24 July, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9923 of 2014
======================================================
Ajeet Kumar s/o Sri Uday Kumar Chaudhary r/o - Bharsar, P.S. - Piro,
Distt. - Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India , through Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
India at New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
3. Chairman, Govt. of India, Staff Selection Commission, (Central Range),
Allahabad.
4. Asst. Director, (Examination), Govt. of India, Staff Selection
Commission, (Central Range), Allahabad.
5. D.I.G., SHQ, BSF, Kishanganj.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha,Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi (A.S.G.)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-07-2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner applied for the post of constable (GD),CAPF,and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, pursuant to an advertisement published in the year, 2013, by Staff Selection Commission, (Central Range), Allahabad.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that he passed in the written test and also qualified in physical test. However, he was found unfit by the medical Board at Kishanganj on 29.01.2014. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a format for repeal for medical examination. He further submits that the Patna High Court CWJC No.9923 of 2014 (3) dt.24-07-2014 2/2 petitioner got examined by Dr.Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Ara, on 1.2.2014 and fitness certificate was issued to him on 2.2.2014. After obtaining fitness certificate, the petitioner sent it to Kishanganj Office through Speed Post on 4.2.2014, but instead of issuing call letter to him his application was returned with stipulation "refused to accept".
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner again filed application requesting the respondents for medical review on 3.3.2014 but the same has not been considered by the authority concerned.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would only observe that if the petitioner approaches the authority concerned with his representation along with relevant documents, the same would be considered in accordance with law expeditiously.
The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) AnilKrSinha/-
U T