Niraj Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1171 of 2016 ====================================================== Niraj Kumar, Son of Jay Krishan Sahani, resident of Village- Nagwan, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force, Department of Home, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jhaphan, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

3. The Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board, Constable (Technical/ Tradesman), Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

4. The Additional Medical Member, Recruitment Constable (Technical/ Tradesman), Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshul, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay, Addl. Soc. Gen. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been declared unfit for appointment in the C.R.P.F. Initially the fitness report at Annexure 7 would show that the petitioner was disqualified as unfit on three grounds; (a) Tongue tie, (b) Clubbing and (c) Hyper extension of B/L elbow joint. The petitioner after getting himself examined by the civil doctors, who reported fitness on all three counts, copies of which are formed part of Annexures 7 series, again filed an appeal and his matter was put to review. The result of the Review Medical Examination is present at Annexure 8 and while the Review

Patna High Court CWJC No.1171 of 2016 (2) dt.03-07-2017 Medical Board has not agree with the medical opinion as regarding clubbing, the other defects found by the Medical Board has been upheld by the Review Medical Board i.e. hyper extension of B/L elbow joint as well as tongue tie.

On enquiry Mr. Anshul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the Review Medical Board has partially disagreed on the fitness, it would require a fresh examination.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has been declared medically unfit not only by the Medical Board but also the Review Medical Board, this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence or interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Surendra/- U