Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1066 (JHR)

Mahendra Pandit v. Union of India (UOI)

2008-09-03

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed in this writ application for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent-authorities to allow the petitioner to conclude the remaining part of their training or in the alternative, direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Office work of the Respondents-authorities. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The petitioner's case in brief is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 29.03.2005, inviting eligible candidates for spot Recruitment for the post of Constable in R.P.F./R.P.S.F., the petitioner had submitted his candidature by submitting his application and had appeared before the Respondents-authorities for his Physical Test. On conducting the Physical Test, the Respondents had declared him passed in the Test and allotted him Roll No. 25739, for appearing at the Written Test held on 10th May, 2005. The petitioner appeared at the written Test and the Selection Committee had declared him successful in the written Test also, On the declaration of the Results by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was called, vide a letter dated 19th October, 2005, issued by the Respondent No. 3, to appear at the Medical Test on 25.10.2005 a the Railway Hospital, Dhanbad. On conducting the Medical Test, the Chief Medical Officer had declared the petitioner as medically fit and issued Fitness Certificate in favour of the petitioner, which was submitted before the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, on being directed, the petitioner reported himself before the Commandant, 2nd Battalion of R.P.S.F., Gorakhpur on the stipulated date. The Training commenced on 01.05.2006. However, even while the petitioner was undergoing Training, the Respondent No. 4 being the member of the Training Centre directed the petitioner for a re medical test at the L.N. Mishra Central Hospital, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. The petitioner was later on, admitted in the Hospital on 08.07.2006 for a surgical operation to separate his joint fingers of the right hand. However, after his discharge from the Hospital, when the petitioner wanted to resume his Training, he was not allowed to join and on the contrary, his services were terminated by the order of the Respondent No. 3 on the ground that he was found medically unfit. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had never suppressed the fact even during the physical Test that two fingers of his right hand were joint. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had never suppressed the fact even during the physical Test that two fingers of his right hand were joint. The jointness of his fingers had not caused any impediment whatsoever while the petitioner was undergoing Training and since after the separation of the joint fingers after the Surgical intervention, the petitioner did not suffer from any Physical defect whatsoever and therefore, he could not have been declared as Medically unfit for the service. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner's appointment in the manner as done, by the Respondents is totally against the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was never offered any opportunity to explain. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents. It is explained that call notice was issued to the selected candidate for medical examination on 19.10.2005 and on examining the petitioner by his physical appearance, the Respondent No. 3 had pointed out two physical marks of identification, namely, (i) joint two fingers on right hand and (ii) mole on right shoulders. It is further explained that the Medical Superintendent had though examined the petitioner and had issued a Fitness Certificate dated 28.10.2005, but had not mentioned the details of examination. Instead he had forwarded a floppy in Ms Excel format. Thereafter, the selected Constables were sent for Training. It is further stated that for appointment of Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force, the condition precedent is that the candidate should qualify in the training and complete the Training Course, besides possessing the requisite standards of Educational qualification, Physical Fitness and age limit. The petitioner, though, was found qualified in the written Test and the preliminary Physical Test, was found unfit during the Training conducted on account of the fact that the two fingers of his right hand were attached together. This being a vital defect for a constable, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the post. It is sought to be explained that the earlier declaration by the Medical Officer that the petitioner was found medically fit, was an obvious mistake on the face of it. It is further explained that though with his attached fingers, the petitioner was sent for Training but in course of Training, he was found unable to make proper and regular firing/operating the ammunition. It is further explained that though with his attached fingers, the petitioner was sent for Training but in course of Training, he was found unable to make proper and regular firing/operating the ammunition. Under such circumstances, the Chief Security Commissioner, under Section 67(2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, has the power to discharge any direct recruit selected for being appointed as a Constable-member of the force at any time during course of practical Training. The petitioner having been found physically unfit in course of training, has rightly been refused by the concerned authorities from being enrolled as a member of the Force. 6. From the facts and circumstances, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner did suffer from a physical defect i.e. attachment of two fingers of his right hand. Though in spite of such physical defect, he was selected and sent for Training, he was found unfit in course of Training on account of the physical defect, since he was found unable to make proper and regular firing/operating the ammunition. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner was directed to appear for re medical examination and on re medical examination, the petitioner was declared by the Medical Board as unfit for his appointment to the post. 7. Section 67 of the Railway Protection Force Rules reads as follows: 67. Disciplinary Control: (1) The staff and trainees at any training institution of the Force, shall, so long as they are at such institution of undergoing practical training at some other place, be under the disciplinary control of the Principal of that training institution. (2) A direct recruit selected for being appointed as enrolled member, till such time he is not formally appointed to the Force, is liable to be discharged at any stage if the Chief Security Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing, deems it fit so to do in the interest of the Force. 8. It is manifest from the above provision that mere selection of a candidate by the Selection Committee does not make the eligibility of the candidate as complete, unless he is also found fit and selected in the Training. The petitioner having not been found medically fit and having been declared as unsuccessful in the Training, the refusal of the Respondent-authorities to accept the petitioner for his enrollment in the Force, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The petitioner having not been found medically fit and having been declared as unsuccessful in the Training, the refusal of the Respondent-authorities to accept the petitioner for his enrollment in the Force, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. Application dismissed.