Judgment :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.26894 of 2004, which has been filed challenging the order impugned passed by the first respondent as well as the consequential order passed by the second respondent. 2. The appellant herein was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 09.06.1993. Thereafter, being graduate, he applied for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police. He was subjected to Physical Efficiency Test, in which he participated and after getting qualified, he was asked to attend the written test and viva-voce test. The appellant became successful in both the written test and viva-voce test. At this stage, he was once again asked to appear for physical examination before the Medical Board. However, the appellant was not issued with any communication. Therefore, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing application in O.A.No.5906 of 1997 and during pendency of the same, he was once again called for the second medical examination, as in the earlier medical examination, he was found "not fit". It is seen from the records that the original application in O.A.No.5906 of 1997 filed by the appellant was mistakenly dismissed as it was clubbed with a batch of other cases, wherein the issues were different. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.5768 of 1999 and a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the common order passed in the batch of applications in so far as the appellant is concerned and remitted the case back to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. Pursuant to the closure of the Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition has been taken up by the learned single Judge. 3. It is to be seen that during the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, the appellant was once again called upon to appear for the second medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, the Government General Hospital, Chennai, on 11.10.2001 and the Board declared that the appellant has got a minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot, which may not interfere with his routine duties. However, inspite of the said report, respondents 1 and 2 rejected the case of the appellant. 4. However, inspite of the said report, respondents 1 and 2 rejected the case of the appellant. 4. When the writ petition in W.P.No.26894 of 2004 was taken up, the learned single Judge dismissed the same on the ground that the second Medical Board found that the appellant was having a physical deformity. Further more, even though the appellant can do his regular routine duties, he may not be fully fit to do all other duties connected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on 28.07.2011. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon a judgment dated 31.01.2005, passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.29352 of 2004 and submits that in a case involving more physical deformity, than that of the appellant herein, the writ petition was allowed granting the prayer. Further the said order of the learned single Judge was also implemented by the respondents therein in full compliance. The learned counsel relied upon certain medical literature to substantiate the case of the appellant that a mild deformity by birth is not a serious one to interfere with the normal activities of a human being. According to him, the opinion of the Medical Board ought not to have been accepted by the respondents, more so, when the appellant has been working as Grade-II Police Constable and thereafter, promoted as the Head Constable after up gradation as of now. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that considering the nature of the work, the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the appellant. The appellant is not fully fit to hold the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Only after considering all the materials placed, in particular, the opinion of the Medical Board, the respondents rejected the case of the appellant. Hence, no interference has to be called for. 7. We have perused the proceedings of the second Medical Board conducted on 11.10.2001. For the purpose of convenience, we extract the said proceedings. "As per the Director of Medical Education's Ref. No.55736/H&D/1/2001 dated 27.8.2001, the second Medical Board held on 4.10.2001 and 11.10.2001 Thiru R.Venkatesan, Police Constable No.2923, Trichy District has appeared before the Medical Board on 4.10.2001 and 11.10.2001. We have perused the proceedings of the second Medical Board conducted on 11.10.2001. For the purpose of convenience, we extract the said proceedings. "As per the Director of Medical Education's Ref. No.55736/H&D/1/2001 dated 27.8.2001, the second Medical Board held on 4.10.2001 and 11.10.2001 Thiru R.Venkatesan, Police Constable No.2923, Trichy District has appeared before the Medical Board on 4.10.2001 and 11.10.2001. On careful examination of the candidate on 11.10.2001 at 11.00 a.m., by the second Medical Board, the board declared that: The candidate has got minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot which may not interfere with his routine duties. Marks of Identification: 1. A Black mole over Right Shoulder 2. A Black mole over left side of nose." 8. A perusal of the said proceedings would go to show that what the appellant has got "by way of birth difficulty" is only a minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot. The Medical Board has given a clear finding that the said defect would not interfere with his routine duties. That is why, he was appointed as Constable and thereafter, promoted as Head Constable and the said appointment/promotion has been made after being satisfied with the physical fitness of the appellant to work in the police force. That being so, we are unable to appreciate the reasoning given by the respondents that different fitness is required for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Head Constable and Police Constable. Even if for argument sake, the contention of the respondents is accepted, it cannot be said the appellant is not eligible for promotion to the Post of Sub Inspect of Police. Therefore, when the appellant is entitled for promotion to the post of Head Constable, it cannot be said that he is not entitled for further promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The materials produced would also show that the minimal and minor deformity suffered by the appellant from his birth would not be an impediment to discharge his duties. Further more, the order of the learned single Judge relied on by he learned counsel for the petitioner relating to a case involving much more serious deformity has been accepted and in fact, implemented by the respondents. Further more, the order of the learned single Judge relied on by he learned counsel for the petitioner relating to a case involving much more serious deformity has been accepted and in fact, implemented by the respondents. When the Medical Board made it clear that the appellant can do his normal duties, the respondent cannot eschew the same and come to an independent decision, more so, when the appellant is otherwise fully qualified on merit to hold the post in question. Hence, looking from any angle, we do not find any reason to uphold the order impugned, passed by the respondents. 9. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in the post of Sub Inspector of Police within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.