Kamal Narayan Bhatt v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8571 of 2014 ====================================================== Kamal Narayan Bhatt Son of Sri Ravindra Bhat village P.O- Balbandh, P.SCharpokhari, Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Director, R.P.F. New Delhi.

2. The D.G. of Police RPF CGO Complex, N. Block, Lodhiroad, N. Delhi.

3. The I.G- Cum- Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Eastern Central Railway Hajipur ( Bihar)

4. The Deputy Commissioner, R.P.F Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application: "That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to remeasurement the chest of the petitioner and for grant of all consequential benefits."

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the measurement of chest of the petitioner in course of medical examination for appointment on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force was wrongly measured and wrongly recorded.

When this Court had put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there was any provision in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8571 of 2014 (2) dt.13-03-2015 advertisement or in the norms laid down by the respondents as to whether a person, who fails in the medical fitness test, would be entitled to seek review of such medical fitness, he had admitted that there was no such provision in the advertisement. In that view of the matter, this Court must not allow the claim of the petitioner for his re-measurement. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that as a matter of fact the petitioner had also appeared in the re-measurement and there again also this measurement was not found up to the prescribed criteria.

Learned counsel for the petitioner again is not in a position to deny this fact as well despite service of copy of the counter affidavit on 28.1.2015.

That being so, this application must fail and is hereby dismissed.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U