JUDGMENT : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. Heard Mr. R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in both appeals and perused the materials placed on record. 2. Both the writ appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the orders passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.10584 and 8991of 2013, which pertain to the non-selection of the appellant in the recruitment conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, for the post of Fireman. The reason for which the appellant was not selected is on the ground that he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board. However, in the first order passed by the respondent Board, the exact reason for which the appellant was declared medically unfit was not disclosed. Therefore, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.8991 of 2013, challenging communication of the second respondent, dated 17.05.2013 and for a direction to the respondent Board to conduct fresh medical test. 3. The Writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8991 of 2013, by order dated 01.07.2013, opined that the correctness of the medical report cannot be doubted and there is no serious manifest illegality in rejecting the case of the appellant. However, in the meantime, another order, dated 20.06.2013, was passed by the respondent Board, wherein the respondent Board for the first time disclosed that the appellant has been categorized as medically unfit for defective vision. The appellant challenging the said order filed W.P. (MD).No.10584 of 2013, which was also dismissed by order, dated 04.07.2013, largely on the ground that an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8991 of 2013, was dismissed. These, two orders are put to challenge in the present writ appeals. 4. We note that the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(Ms.)No.1791, Home (Police.3) Department, dated 14.12.2007, directed the Recruiting Agency to take opinion from the second Medical Board, where requests have been made by the candidates, who were declared unfit by the Medical Board for Flat Foot, Colour Vision Defect etc. If the said Government Order is made applicable to the present case, it is well open to the appellant to seek for reference to the second Medical Board. 5. If the said Government Order is made applicable to the present case, it is well open to the appellant to seek for reference to the second Medical Board. 5. In fact, in a case relating to another candidate, by name, P.Muniyasamy, who applied for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and who was held medically unfit due to colour vision defect, requested for assessment before the second Medical Board, which was negatived by the Additional Director General of Police and the said order was put to challenge in W.P.(MD) No.2497 of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 13.02.2013, which is to the following effect: "4. According to me, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground that the Aravind Eye Hospital has certified that the colour vision of the petitioner is not defective. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the respondents are bound by the certificate issued by the Medical Board and the respondents are not bound to take into consideration the certificate issued by the Aravind Eye Hospital. Nevertheless, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the respondents for constructing a Second Medical Board to find out as to whether he is suffering from any colour vision and if any such representation is made, the name shall be considered by the respondents. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to apply to the respondents requesting them for constitution of Second Medical Board for eye test, in the light of the opinion given by the Aravind Eye Hospital and based on the opinion to be given by the Second Medical Board, the respondents are entitled to take further action. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 6. In the above referred order, liberty was granted to the petitioner therein to apply to the respondents with a request to refer his case for second opinion. 7. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 6. In the above referred order, liberty was granted to the petitioner therein to apply to the respondents with a request to refer his case for second opinion. 7. In a recent recruitment done by the respondent Board to the post of Grade- II Police Constable, one such case arose for consideration before the Division Bench to which one of us (T.S.S.,J.) was a party in N.Elango vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and another, W.P.No.24601 of 2015 and in the said writ petition, a direction was issued by referring the candidate for medical examination. 8. It is brought to our notice that in another case i.e., I. Rajesh Kumar vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others, W.A.(MD) No.280 of 2015, the Division Bench, by Judgment dated 17.04.2015, referred the candidate for fresh medical examination. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that four years had lapsed since the recruitment had taken place. We may note that the appellant has been pursuing his remedy before this Court and both the appeals have been filed in time and they were pending and therefore, the fact that the appeals have not been taken up earlier and disposed of cannot be put against the appellant and he cannot be prejudiced on the said ground. Furthermore, we find that as on date, the appellant is aged about 23 years and he was aged about 19 years when he applied for the recruitment. 10. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the order passed by the Division Bench and the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.1791, dated 14.12.2007, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to apply to the respondent Board requesting that his case may be referred to the second Medical Board for opinion and if such request is made, the respondent Board is directed to consider the same taking note of the aforementioned position and pass appropriate appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 11. The writ appeals are disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.