JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, while working as Class II Officer in the Office of the Commissioner of Treasuries & Accounts, Chennai, was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation as Senior Manager (Finance) with effect from 03.03.1997. 2. The lien of the petitioner was kept in his parent department. The petitioner, while on deputation, suffered from Disc Syndrome in the Lumbar Region and had to remain absent from duty from 01.01.2000 for 45 days. 3. The leave of 45 days on medical ground was sanctioned by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner was later diagnosed to be suffering from Spondylosis and was allowed to avail additional leave for another 15 days. This leave was again sanctioned by respondent no.2. 4. The case of petitioner is that as per service rules, governing the service condition of an employee, it was mandatory to refer the employee to medical board for examination, in case the leave was for more than 60 days on medical ground. 5. The second respondent requested the first respondent to examine petitioner and send the medical report. In pursuance to the direction issued by respondent no.2, the petitioner appeared before the medical board. 6. The case of petitioner is that though no fee was payable for medical board examination, but he was forced to pay a fee of Rs.60/-, but against this, receipt given was only for Rs.30/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a complaint. 7. No notice of these averments can be taken, as the petitioner has not impleaded the person as party against whom allegations are levelled of giving receipt of Rs.30/-and the petitioner was examined on 29.03.2000 and thereafter review was held on 12.04.2000 and petitioner was declared fit to join duty. 8. While giving fitness certificate, the Medical Board observed that as the petitioner had not produced any original treatment particulars, therefore being on simple leave, his leave be regularized other than on medical ground. 9. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned part of order, passed by the Medical Board. 10. The order reads as under: "Special Messenger Medical Education Department From To Dr.R.Radhakrishnan, MS.,MCh., The Managing Director, Superintendent & Chairman, Tamilnadu Poultry Development Regional Medical Board, Corporation Ltd., Govt.Royapettah Hospital, No.2., Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Chennai-600 014. Thevar Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35 K.Dis.No.2936/RMB/2000 Dt: 24.4.2000 Sir/Madam, Sub: Govt. 10. The order reads as under: "Special Messenger Medical Education Department From To Dr.R.Radhakrishnan, MS.,MCh., The Managing Director, Superintendent & Chairman, Tamilnadu Poultry Development Regional Medical Board, Corporation Ltd., Govt.Royapettah Hospital, No.2., Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Chennai-600 014. Thevar Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35 K.Dis.No.2936/RMB/2000 Dt: 24.4.2000 Sir/Madam, Sub: Govt. Royapettah Hospital, Chennai-14-Regional Medical Board – Medical Examination of Thiru T.R.Kannan Medical Report – forwarded – Regarding. Ref: Your Office Lr.No.Roc.No.8387/E3/97, dt.7.3.2000. The Medical Report in respect of the above individual is forwarded after medical examination by the Regional Medical Board of this hospital held on 29.03.2000 and reviewed on 12.04.2000. Fit to join duty on 12.4.2000 A.N. As he has not produced any original treatment particulars and is evident he was on simple medical leave. Hence his leave period may be regularized other than on medical grounds. Medical certificate produced by him having different ailments. Sd/- Superintendent & Chairman, Regional Medical Board, Govt.Royapettah Hospital, Chennai-14. Encl.: 1) Medical fitness issued by RMB. 2) Medical certificates – 4 Nos." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, i. firstly on the ground of jurisdiction of the Medical Board, which could not decide as to how the leave was to be treated; ii. second ground of challenge is that the impugned order is totally arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as original treatment particulars were to be submitted with the competent authority, which was actually done by petitioner. 12. Accepting the application along with original treatment particulars, the respondent no.2 already granted him medical leave. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Medical Board to issue any direction to change the leave granted on medical ground, to the one other than medical ground. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader contends that this order cannot be said to be the impugned order, as it was only the recommendation to the competent authority, and it is for the competent authority to accept or not to accept the recommendations. 14. On consideration, I find that there is force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Pleader contends that this order cannot be said to be the impugned order, as it was only the recommendation to the competent authority, and it is for the competent authority to accept or not to accept the recommendations. 14. On consideration, I find that there is force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Medical Board has no jurisdiction to issue direction, as to how the period of leave was to be treated, as the Medical Board was supposed to give opinion as to whether the petitioner was fit to join duty or not, and it was for the competent authority to decide, as to how the period was to be treated. 15. The learned Additional Government Pleader is right in contending that the writ petition against order of Medical Board is not competent, as the opinion of the Medical Board is not binding on respondent no.2. The competent authority was to take independent decision in this regard. 16. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, based on the opinion given by the Medical Board. The only prayer made by petitioner is that the period of leave may be adjusted against earned leave of the petitioner. 17. The petitioner has also not placed on record any order how the period was treated, therefore, this writ petition, as framed being not competent, is ordered to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the writ petition is totally misconceived, as respondent no.2 had already granted medical leave to petitioner, and the reference to Medical Board was only to have the fitness certificate. 18. No costs.