Patna High Court - Orders
Sonu Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India & Ors on 8 December, 2014
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.368 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12265 of 2013
======================================================
1. Sonu Kumar Singh, Son Of Surendra Singh Resident Of Village-
Hasanpur, P.O.- Hasanpur Gurda, Police Station -Mahnar, District-
Vaishali.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union Of India.
2. Director General Of C.R.P.F., Central Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. I.G., C.R.P.F., Sector, Bihar, Ashiana Digha, Patna.
4. D.I.G.P., C.R.P.F. Group Central, Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi (A.S.G.)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
5 08-12-2014Pursuant to an advertisement published, on 10.11.2012, inviting applications to fill up vacancies in the rank of constable in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRPF'), which is a paramilitary force, the appellant applied for the post of driver, the post of driver being in the rank of constable. After his physical test, as the appellant was selected, he appeared in the written test and passed the written examination. The appellant had to appear, and, in fact, appeared, on 02.02.2013, before the Medical Board, at the Patna High Court LPA No.368 of 2014 (5) dt.08-12-2014 2/5 recruitment centre, Muzaffarpur, for his medical examination and, on the medical examination, he was declared unfit on the ground that he had been suffering from hypertension and also right side hydrocele. The appellant, then, underwent medical treatment in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, and, upon being declared fit, he appeared, on 05.03.2013, before a Review Medical Board of the CRPF. However, on the review medical examination, too, the appellant was declared unfit inasmuch as he was not found to have been completely cured of the ailment of the right side hydrocele. As the appellant was not recruited, he, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s), filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 12265 of 2013.
By order, dated 28.02.2013, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that as the appellant was found unfit by the Review Medical Board, there is no ground for granting any relief to the writ petitioner.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the writ petitioner has come, in appeal, before this Court.
We have heard Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the Patna High Court LPA No.368 of 2014 (5) dt.08-12-2014 3/5 Union of India.
Considering the fact that the appellant has been, admittedly, found unfit by the Review Medical Board, we are of the view that the decision of the respondents not to recruit the appellant cannot be termed illegal or unwarranted in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case.
The appellant has also contended that he was, as a matter of fact, fit on the date of the review medical examination. This stand of the appellant, if taken into account, would give rise to disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined in a writ proceeding under Article 226 inasmuch as determination of such a disputed question of fact would require recording of evidence and holding of roving enquiry, which would not be appropriate, reasonable and desirable in a writ proceeding of present nature. This apart, the recruitment rally, wherein the appellant had participated, was held in the year 2013 and this appeal is being considered almost the end of 2014.
Situated thus, it becomes clear that even if the appellant is found medically fit today, his fitness cannot be automatically allowed to relate back to the date of the initial medical examination or review medical examination.
On behalf of the appellant, reference has been Patna High Court LPA No.368 of 2014 (5) dt.08-12-2014 4/5 made to the case of Anil Kumar Singh V. Union of India and Another, reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 467. In Anil Kumar Singh (supra), a person, suffering from hernia, was recruited and, upon recruitment, he was treated and he was allowed to continue, whereas the appellant, Anil Kumar Singh, was a person, who had developed hernia during the period of training, which commenced after the recruitment had been made, but his appointment was terminated on his developing hernia.
Considering the fact that in the past, a constable, suffering from hernia, had been recruited and, then, operated upon and continued, the Supreme Court held, in Anil Kumar Singh (supra), that the appellant, Anil Kumar Singh, could not have been treated differently from the earlier recruited constable.
The present one is not such a case as the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra) and the decision, rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra), cannot, therefore, be applied to the facts of the present case, when the appellant was not found medically fit at the initial medical examination on 02.02.2013 nor was he found medically fit on the review medical examination, which was held on 05.03.2013, because he was still found to have been suffering from right side hydrocele and was, Patna High Court LPA No.368 of 2014 (5) dt.08-12-2014 5/5 therefore, not recruited.
Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
This appeal is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(I. A. Ansari, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) Mkr./A.F.R. U