Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 127 (JHR)

Sanjay Prasad Yadav v. Chairman, Railway Board

2008-02-06

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. P. Modi for the respondents. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter in his favour for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Railway Protection Force. 3. Admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner qualified in written test as well as in the interview for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in RPF and he was informed by letter dated 5.11.2001 that his name has already been recommended to the Director General (R.P.F) Railway Board for further action and an offer of appointment will be sent to him by the competent officer of security Department in due course. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by Annexure-4, i.e. the letter dated 4.3.2002 to appear on 15.3.2002 for verification of original documents and for medical examination at Calcutta. 4. The petitioner made a grievance in this writ petition that in spite of the above facts no appointment letter has been issued in his favour. 5. On the other hand, by filing a counter-affidavit the claim of the petitioner has been controverted and it is stated that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in his writ petition. It is stated that after medical examination the petitioner was declared medically unfit because of the defects of vision in his eyes. The petitioner thereafter, made representation before the higher authorities on 2.4.2002 and made a request for re-medical examination. Considering the request of the petitioner, a Medical Board consisting of three eye-specialists was constituted and the petitioner was again examined by the Medical Board but again he was declared unfit by the Medical Board also which is apparent from Annexures-C and D to the counter-affidavit. 6. The petitioner states that there is no defect in his eyes as has been certified by the Sankar Netralaya and Kothari Medical Center, Calcutta. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the fact that the petitioner was re-medically examined by the Medical Board constituted at his request and, thereafter, was found medically unfit and, therefore, this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot grant relief to the petitioner as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.