JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner was selected for appointment as a police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion after undergoing the written test as well as physical efficiency test held by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner satisfied the physical qualifications and physical efficiency required by the special rules regarding height, chest, eye sight and other matters. His name was therefore advised for appointment; but he was not actually appointed. He was directed to undergo a medical examination on 7-1-1987, on which he attended. He was called upon to appear for a further medical examination on 27-5-1987 when he was examined by one Dr. N. V. Inasu, Civil Surgeon and Physician attached to District Hospital, Trichur. According to the petitioner, the said Doctor could not arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the condition of his heart, and therefore, he referred the case to Sree Chithra Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. A copy of the letter of reference relied on by the petitioner is Ext. P2. It states that the petitioner's problem is one which is viewed differently by different physicians. A request was therefore made to investigate the matter and to do what was needed. The petitioner was accordingly examined at the Sree Chithra Thirunal Institute consequent on which a note was given to him on 5-6-1987 certifying that there was no significant heart disease detected in him. This note is further corroborated by the certificate Ext. P6 issued by the Institute on 9-11-1987 wherein it was certified that the petitioner was investigated for cardiac disease, and that the clinical examination and investigations showed that he did not have any detectable cardiac disease. He should undertake all normal activities. 2. However and after the examination on 27-5-1987, Dr. Inasu recorded his opinion in the departmental registers as "unfit" "Palstenesis" (Pulmonary Stenosis). Because of this record, the petitioner was not appointed as a police constable. He made a representation Ext. P4 to which he received a reply Ext. P5 stating merely that the medical board which examined him on 27-5-1987 had reported that he was not fit for appointment as a Police Constable. The petitioner thereupon filed this original petition, and on his motion, this court passed an interim order directing one post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion to be kept vacant until further orders. 3. The petitioner thereupon filed this original petition, and on his motion, this court passed an interim order directing one post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion to be kept vacant until further orders. 3. Petitioner's contention is that the Government has no right to medically unfit the petitioner when once he has been found fit for appointment by the Public Service Commission after subjecting him to various tests relating to his physical qualifications and physical efficiency. R.10(b)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules which is relied on by the respondents is not attracted to cases where the applicant has undergone physical tests as a condition of selection by the Public Service Commission and has satisfied the physical requirements prescribed by the special rules. The decision of this court in Rajasekharan Nair v. D. I. G. of Police, 1987 (2) KLT 993 , is relied on in support of this proposition. 4. The petitioner contended alternately that in any event, and having regard to the facts of his case, there is no final and conclusive opinion rendered by any authority that he is medically unfit. According to him, Dr. Inasu did not corns to any final conclusion about his medical unfitness, On the other hand, he referred the case for further consideration by Sree Chithra Thirunal Institute. When that Institute has, on investigation, come to the conclusion that he does not suffer from any heart ailment and is fit for normal duties, there is no basis for the Government to refuse to appoint him in service. 5. R.10(b)(i) of the K. S. & S.S.R. reads:- "10. Qualifications. - (b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless" (i) he satisfies the appointing authority that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity rendering him unfit for such service;" Thereunder no person is eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless be satisfies the appointing authority inter alia that he is of sound health. The satisfaction required is that of the appointing authority. It is true that the Public Service Commission has examined the physical qualifications and physical efficiency of the petitioner as required by the special rules before including him in the select list. The satisfaction required is that of the appointing authority. It is true that the Public Service Commission has examined the physical qualifications and physical efficiency of the petitioner as required by the special rules before including him in the select list. But that does not by itself entitle the petitioner to be appointed, unless he is able to satisfy the appointing authority that he is of sound health. There is no exception made in R.10(b)(i) in relation to selections made by the Public Service Commission after satisfying the physical qualifications and physical efficiency tests. On the other hand, the rule is imperative that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that he is of sound health. The satisfaction required at the time of selection is that of the Public Service Commission regarding the qualifications. The satisfaction required at the time of appointment is that of the appointing authority regarding sound health. The two are different. The stages at which the satisfaction is to be arrived at are also different. May be the petitioner satisfies the physical qualifications at the time of selection. But he may not be able to satisfy the condition of sound health at the time he is appointed, which may be years later. It can well be that he has developed an ailment after the selection which renders him unfit for appointment as being not of "sound health". It is true, as stated in Rajasekharan Nair's case that the government cannot again go into the question of the physical qualifications and physical efficiency of the candidate, on which the Public Service Commission has already arrived at a decision at the time of selection. But in relation to matters not dealt with by the Commission, R.10(b)(i) enables Government to satisfy themselves about the eligibility of the candidate with reference to the matters mentioned. The ambit of R.10(b)(i) is not cut down by any anterior satisfaction arrived at by the Public Service Commission. The two do not overlap. That was what was laid down in Rajasekharan Nair's case. In relation to mailers not touched upon by the Commission or in relation to matters arising subsequent to the selection made by it, certainly it is open to the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the health, habits and freedom from bodily infirmities or defects of the candidate. That was what was laid down in Rajasekharan Nair's case. In relation to mailers not touched upon by the Commission or in relation to matters arising subsequent to the selection made by it, certainly it is open to the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the health, habits and freedom from bodily infirmities or defects of the candidate. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the petitioner is bereft of substance and has to fail. 6. I am however of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the second point. It appears that Dr. Inasu had officially recorded that the petitioner was unfit for service. At the same time he has mentioned in Ext. P2 of even date that the alleged ailment of the petitioner is one on which different opinions are held by different physicians and therefore, the matter required expert opinion. The ailment alleged is cardiac ailment. Dr. Inasu himself is not a Cardiologist. He is a Civil Surgeon and Physician. He himself was in doubt, and required the matter to be further examined. Such further examination disclosed that the petitioner did not suffer from any cardiac ailment. It was therefore only proper that the question of sound health of the petitioner is considered afresh by the appointing authority in the light of all these materials. The material available before this court is indicative that the petitioner does not suffer from any cardiac infraction rendering him unfit for normal work. The matter has therefore to be reconsidered in the light of these materials by a properly appointed Medical Board. 7. I therefore, allow the original petition. The first respondent will constitute a new Medical Board to examine the case of the petitioner with reference to R.10(b)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said Medical Board shall take into account the materials available namely Exts. P3 and P6 also before arriving at a decision as to the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment in Government service. The said Medical Board shall take into account the materials available namely Exts. P3 and P6 also before arriving at a decision as to the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment in Government service. Petitioner's case shall be examined by the Medical Board and decision taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment Pending such decision, the post ordered to be kept vacant by the interim order passed by this court on C. M. P. No. 20771 of 1987 shall continue to be vacant to entertain the petitioner, if he is found fit.