JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. The petitioner has produced extract of textbook to demonstrate that Hemorrhoids and Polyps are two different diseases. 2. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned ASGI has also tendered a copy of extract from "Bailey & Love''s Short Practice of Surgery [24th Edition]". 3. Taken on record. 4. On the basis of textbook extract, Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents could not have embarked upon an entirely new examination, different from the ailment detected during medical examination on the basis of which his candidature was rejected. Referring to the definition of Hemorrhoids and Polyps, Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that declaration of medical unfitness by the Review Medical Board is illegal. It is contended that by adopting an entirely different procedure in the Review Medical Board, the petitioner''s candidature has been illegally rejected on a ground different from the ground on which the Medical Board declared him medically unfit. 5. From the extracts produced by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that Hemorrhoid has been defined as vascular formations in the anal canal. Hemorrhoids are swollen veins located around the anus or in lower part of rectum. Hemorrhoids become a problem only when they become swollen or inflamed, in which case they are called "piles". Whereas, Polyps, in contrast, are decidedly abnormal. They are tissue growths that grow out of a mucous membrane and untreated Polyps may develop into colorectal cancer. 6. It is not in dispute that Hemorrhoids and Polyps both are disqualifications for appointment under the respondents. Origin of both Hemorrhoids and Polyps appear to be same. Polyps, however, is, in essence, an aggravated form of Hemorrhoids. The plea taken by the petitioner that the respondents have adopted an entirely different procedure where under a different ailment has been detected, is liable to be rejected. In short, the petitioner wants to contend that let there be any other ailment which may not have been detected at the initial stage, detection by the Review Medical Board cannot form a ground for rejection of his candidature. Such a stand would defeat the purpose of medical examination of a candidate. The petitioner, in terms of the extant rules, was granted an opportunity for review of the decision of the Medical Board, which he availed and he was subjected to Review Medical Board. Such a stand would defeat the purpose of medical examination of a candidate. The petitioner, in terms of the extant rules, was granted an opportunity for review of the decision of the Medical Board, which he availed and he was subjected to Review Medical Board. Under the rules there is no other provision for a second Review Medical Board. The documents produced in the present proceeding do not disclose that the examination of the petitioner in the Review Medical Board was patently illegal. 7. In the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.