Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1133 (PAT)

Rohit Kumar v. Union of India

2011-06-20

KISHORE K.MANDAL

body2011
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raghib Ahsan appearing on behalf of Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure-5) passed on his appeal by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F Mokamaghat whereby his appeal stood rejected on the ground that the application was not attached thereto. 3. Petitioner was aspirant for the post of CT/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force. His case was considered and employment was refused on the ground that he was medically unfit. Said communication is contained in Annexure-3. The said order itself recites that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, he may prefer appeal within 15 days before the appellate authority. This is what the petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 13: “13. That it is relevant to mention here that petitioner send an application with medical certificate issued by the respondent No. 5 on 31/01/2011 by registered post to the Respondent No. 4 on 31/01/2011.” 4. Reliance has been placed on Annexure-6 in support of the aforesaid stand. It appears from bare perusal of the appellate order (Annexure-5) that the appeal was not considered on merit and was rejected on the ground that no application was found attached thereto. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Union of India states that such application was filed after the petitioner was medically re-examined by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Munger. Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India is not in a position to support the aforesaid appellate order (Annexure-5) which was passed on technical ground. 6. Having heard the parties, this Court finds that the application was filed by the petitioner after getting him medically re-examined and as such the respondent appellate authority was not justified in refusing to consider his appeal on merit. Even if the application of the petitioner was not on record, the appellate authority could have directed the applicant (petitioner) to furnish the required documents enabling the appellate authority to consider his appeal on merit. Considering the materials on record and keeping in focus the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 25.2.2011 as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and set aside. Let the appellate authority consider the appeal of the petitioner on merit in accordance with law. Considering the materials on record and keeping in focus the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 25.2.2011 as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and set aside. Let the appellate authority consider the appeal of the petitioner on merit in accordance with law. If there is any deficiency which is curable, the appellate authority will direct the petitioner to furnish the relevant documents, if any, and thereafter the appeal of the petitioner shall be considered on merit in accordance with law. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the present order before the appellate authority enabling him to dispose of the appeal on merit expeditiously in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of.