JUDGMENT : At the very outset, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is error in array of respondents and as such, he may be allowed to make necessary correction in cause title of the writ petition. 2. Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India does not object to the prayer. 3. In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to make necessary correction (deletion as well as substitution) in array of respondents by red ink. 4. Heard the parties. 5. At the very outset, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not relying upon the prayer no. 1 whereby direction has been sought for setting aside merit list prepared by the respondent in pursuant to advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018. 6. Petitioner has prayed for appropriate order declaring him to be qualified as he is medically fit to perform duty for which recruitment process was initiated. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to get the petitioner medically examined through qualified government doctor so that true picture of his medical status could be obtained for consideration of his case for appointment in terms of the advertisement. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to keep one seat vacant till finalization of instant writ petition. 7. The case of the petitioner in brief is that Advertisement being F.No. 3/2/2017 – P & P-I was floated by Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CFPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles as per the Recruitment Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for total 54,953 posts. Petitioner along with others appeared in the said examination and were medically examined which is called detailed medical examination. In the said detailed medical examination, petitioner was declared unfit and, thereafter, a review medical examination was held. In the said review medical examination also, petitioner was declared unfit. Petitioner along with others appeared in the said examination and were medically examined which is called detailed medical examination. In the said detailed medical examination, petitioner was declared unfit and, thereafter, a review medical examination was held. In the said review medical examination also, petitioner was declared unfit. It is specific case of the petitioner that in the review medical examination, he was never examined but a certificate to that extent was issued in which he was declared medically unfit. It is also case of the petitioner that signature was obtained by the Doctor on blank format and later on the same was filled up which shows that petitioner was medically unfit. It is case of the petitioner that before going to the review medical board, he got himself examined by the Ultratech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. and had undergone medical examination on those issues which was mentioned in the medical report of the respondents and vide report dated 01.09.2020, he was found to be fit as there was no abnormality found. Since petitioner was declared unfit without any examination, though he was medically fit as per report of Ultratech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., he has knocked the door of this Court. 8. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that as per rules, a review medical examination was held by the respondents. The respondents ought to have examine the petitioner but without any examination, a report was furnished that 3 petitioner has been found unfit. Learned counsel submits that just on the date of examination, petitioner filed a complaint by way of representation that he was never examined and report was furnished but the same was not considered and without examination of the petitioner, unfitness report was issued. Learned counsel further submits that even Annexure-12, which is report of the consultant Radiologist has not been taken into consideration. The respondent authorities of their own have issued certificate mentioning therein that petitioner is medically unfit for appointment. 9. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. 10. Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, learned counsel representing Union of India vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there cannot be second review medical board. Petitioner, as per rules, has already been examined. Petitioner was found unfit and as such, report regarding the same was issued. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the report. 10. Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, learned counsel representing Union of India vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there cannot be second review medical board. Petitioner, as per rules, has already been examined. Petitioner was found unfit and as such, report regarding the same was issued. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the report. From the report itself it appears that petitioner has put his signature on the report, meaning thereby he has admitted the report issued by the Board. No fresh direction is required in the instant writ petition as petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as he has already been declared medically unfit by the Review Medical Board. The writ petition has got no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Be that as it may, having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly as per rule a review medical board was constituted and petitioner was said to be medically examined. The respondents ought to have considered representation of the petitioner in which there is specific statement that he was never medically examined by the review medical board and the respondents had obtained signature on blank form. Nowhere in the report it has been mentioned that report of Ultratech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. was ever taken into consideration. It was not case of the respondents that the report produced by the petitioner was fake or fabricated. 12. Since petitioner has to be medically examined as per rules, I, hereby direct the respondents to constitute a fresh medical board for examination of the petitioner. The Medical Board shall consist of one Judicial Officer from the Judgeship of Ranchi and three doctors of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi as also one Medical Officer of CRPF, Ranchi who are expert of the concerned Department by whom petitioner has to be examined regarding the problem of Hydrocele and Hernia. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to depute one judicial officer for being Member of the Review Medical Board to be constituted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Dhurwa, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3). The concerned respondent shall constitute the said Medical Board within a period of Four weeks from today. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to depute one judicial officer for being Member of the Review Medical Board to be constituted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Dhurwa, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3). The concerned respondent shall constitute the said Medical Board within a period of Four weeks from today. The concerned respondents shall inform the date to the petitioner and the petitioner shall appear before the Board on the date as per time fixed by the concerned respondent. After examination by the Expert Committee, the report shall be furnished before the Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi and, thereafter, a fresh order shall be passed regarding consideration of case of the petitioner. The report shall be binding upon the parties. 13. Since the fresh medical board has been ordered to be constituted and as such, the medical report dated 16.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi as well as before the respondent no. 3 and the Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Bariatu, Ranchi for taking necessary steps.