Ramesh Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 15029 of 2014 ====================================================== Ramesh Kumar, Son of Pramod Paswan, R/o Village - Barkurba, P.O. and P.S. - Turki, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Delhi 2.

The Regional Director, (C R), Staff Selection Commission, 21-23, Lawther Road, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 3.

The D.I.G. SHQ, BSF, BSF campus, Kishanganj, Bihar 4.

The Commandant of C.R.P.F. CT/GD at GC CRPF Muzaffarpur 5.

The Assistant Commandant (MIN), Kishanganj, Bihar 6.

Chief Medical Officer (S.G.) 109 Battalion B.S.F. CT/GD ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

N O N E For Union of India :

Mr Praveen Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the S S C :

Mr Rajesh Kumar Verma, ASG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-11-2019 The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent-Authorities to reconstitute a Medical Board to examine the physical fitness of the petitioner. The petitioner was an applicant in the selection process conducted in the year, 2012-2013 by the Central Para Military Force for appointment to the post of Constable.

In the Medical Board, petitioner was found to be suffering from some cardiac ailment. He, thereafter, was subjected to review medical board, as claimed by him. The finding of cardiac disease was affirmed by the Review Medical

Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2014(2) dt.05-11-2019 2/2 Board consisting of three Senior Doctors.

In the circumstances, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the writ petition claiming a third medical evaluation would not be maintainable as the specific Rules of selection do not provide for such third Medical Board. It is submitted that the due procedure has been followed, and adequate opportunity, as permissible as per procedure for selection, has been granted to the petitioner. Since, none appears on behalf of the petitioner, without going into the merits of the said submission, writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U