JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition has been filed in terms of the order/observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court dated 11.07.2022 in S.L.P. No.9467-9472 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make following observations, for ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as :- “We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and perused the relevant record with his able assistance. We, however, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 13.12.2021, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the present petition and/or the Interlocutory Order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court. However, at this stage, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that services of some of the candidates, who were found medically fit by the Appellate/ Apex Medical Board have also been dispensed with. We find that no such argument was raised before the High Court. Be that as it may, we grant liberty to such candidates to, firstly, approach the Division Bench of the High Court for recall/review of the Orders terminating their services, and if they don’t succeed in getting the desired relief, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court. Their claim shall be considered independently without being influenced by the impugned order(s). With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 2. Ms. Aanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted by making reference of the statement made by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as under paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit wherein the writ petitioner although has been declared to be medically fit but even then he has not been appointed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that even accepting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.318 of 2020 since the appellant has been declared to be medically fit then the writ petitioner ought to have been appointed on the ground that he has been declared to be medically fit since, that was the spirit of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, which has been impleaded as party by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023, has made submission in opposition to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner by making reference of paragraph-18 of the said counter affidavit and has submitted that after recasting of the merit list in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.08.2017 based upon which the State has also taken decision, in which at the time of recasting of the merit list, the petitioner has been found to have secured 185 marks under EBC-I category whereas under the aforesaid category, the last selected candidate has secured 188 marks. As such, the petitioner was not recommended for appointment in re-casted merit list although he was found medically fit by the Apex Medical Board. 5. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel for the Commission, therefore, has submitted that the criteria of selection was not only the fitness in the medical examination, rather, the medical fitness is one of the conditions and thereafter the assessment of one or the other candidates for the purpose of preparation of merit list is based upon the performance of one of the other candidates in the preliminary and main examination. The petitioner although has been found to be medically fit by the Apex Medical Board but in pursuance to the order passed by the learned writ court, affirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.318 of 2020, the recasting of the merit list was undertaken and at the time of preparation of the fresh merit list on recasting of the candidates who have been declared to be medically fit by the Medical Board, the writ petitioner since has been found to have secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate in the category, therefore, there is no reason to declare the petitioner a successful candidate and hence, the instant petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has adopted the argument advanced on behalf of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the reason that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting agency based upon its recommendation the State is to follow the consequential decision for issuance of appointment letter. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has adopted the argument advanced on behalf of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the reason that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting agency based upon its recommendation the State is to follow the consequential decision for issuance of appointment letter. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the material available on record including the order passed by the learned Single Judge and by the Division bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.318 of 2020 as also the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.9467-9472 of 2022, as quoted and referred hererinabove. 8. Before dealing with the issue, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain factual aspect of this case which reads hereunder as :- 9. The Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the order/judgment dated 05.08.2020 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017 wherein the prayer for quashing of the final merit list pursuant to which the candidates have been appointed to the post of constable under the Jharkhand Police. The writ petitioners are the candidates who have medically been declared to be disqualified. The fact which led the unsuccessful candidates who were the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017 is that they made application in pursuance to the advertisement being Advertisement No. 4 of 2015 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) for appointment on the post of constable. The writ petitioners participated in the process of selection and they were declared successful in the preliminary examination. They were called for written test and were declared successful in the result published on 13.11.2016. According to the writ petitioners, having cleared the mains examination, they were called for medical and physical test in which also they were declared successful and, thereafter, they were called for document verification. The documents were verified in between the period 28.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The petitioners were asked to sign a blank proforma which was with regard to medical fitness. 10. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that they have obtained more than 60% marks and as such, they were expecting to be declared finally selected. However, in the final result, the names of the petitioners were not included as successful candidates. 10. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that they have obtained more than 60% marks and as such, they were expecting to be declared finally selected. However, in the final result, the names of the petitioners were not included as successful candidates. Out of 850 advertised seats, 622 candidates were declared as successful. The writ petitioners subsequently came to know that they have been declared unsuccessful since they were not found medically fit for appointment. 11. The writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the same, filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3239 of 2017. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 11.08.2017 which reads as under :- “Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to declare the 36 writ petitioners as medically fit and to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP). The petitioners claim that they have passed the preliminary test as well as the main examination and their respective roll numbers have been reflected in the merit list, which was prepared after the main examination. The petitioners thereafter, were sent for medical test and they were declared successful but their appointments were not made. The petitioner could come to know that they were found physically fit but were declared medically unfit by the Medical Board, constituted as per the Rules, as such, their names were not recommended for appointment. It is the case of the petitioners that they could come to know that on the ground of knockknee or flat feet etc., they were disqualified. The counsel for the petitioners submits and pleads that the petitioners were forced to sign on blank sheets, which were converted into their acknowledgment of the Medical Board. The petitioners then got themselves suo motu medically examined by Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. It was found that the petitioners do not suffer from the aforesaid infirmity and on this ground, the petitioners have moved this Court. Counter affidavit was filed by the State and also by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The medical board was constituted as per Rules for the medical examination of the petitioners. It was found that the petitioners do not suffer from the aforesaid infirmity and on this ground, the petitioners have moved this Court. Counter affidavit was filed by the State and also by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The medical board was constituted as per Rules for the medical examination of the petitioners. The report of the Medical Board was brought on record in respect of these present 36 petitioners by the respondents. This report suggests that these 36 petitioners were declared medically unfit. Since, there were two divergent views; one by the Medical Board and one by the Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital (both being the Government Servants), this Court vide order dated 7th July, 2017 requested the Assistant Solicitor General of India to assist this Court in getting these 36 petitioners examined by a Neutral Medical Board. The Assistant Solicitor General of India suggested that these 36 petitioners should be got examined by the DIG, Medical, C.R.P.F., Ranchi Composite Hospital, Sambo, Ranchi. This Court vide order dated 7th July, 2017 thus directed the petitioners to appear before the DIG, Medical, C.R.P.F., Ranchi Composite Hospital, Sambo, Ranchi, with a request to the DIG to get these petitioners medically examined and submit a report to this Court. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, 35 petitioners, appeared before the Medical Board, constituted by the DIG, Medical, C.R.P.F., Ranchi Composite Hospital, Sambo, Ranchi. The said Medical Board was constituted of three Medical Officers of C.R.P.F. presided over by Dr. M.K. Sinha, CMO(SG), (Ortho Specialist), CH, CRPF, Neemuch, Dr. Bithika Singh, CMO (SG), CH, CRPF BBSR and Dr. S.K. Parimal, Eye Specialist (Cont.), CH, CRPF, Ranchi. The Medical Board of CRPF found that 30 petitioners out of 35 petitioners were found medically fit. One petitioner i.e. petitioner No. 11 has not appeared before the Board and rest five petitioners, whose names are appearing at Sl. Nos. 18, 19, 22, 24 and 36 were found medically unfit. In view of the report of the Medical Board of the CRPF, this Court, prima facie, expressed opinion that large scale wrong/illegalities/irregularities have been committed by the Medical Board in relation to the appointment of constables and an order was passed on 28.7.2017 to this effect, as the total number of vacancies were approximately 7000 in the advertisement. Mr. In view of the report of the Medical Board of the CRPF, this Court, prima facie, expressed opinion that large scale wrong/illegalities/irregularities have been committed by the Medical Board in relation to the appointment of constables and an order was passed on 28.7.2017 to this effect, as the total number of vacancies were approximately 7000 in the advertisement. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned AAG (as he then was) on 28.7.2017 prayed to defer the matter for seeking instructions from the State as to what action can be taken in this case and to suggest how the wrong/illegalities/irregularities can be undone. Today, the State has filed a counter affidavit suggesting remedial measures, which the State intends to take in this matter. This Court has taken note of the fact notes that the State has not questioned the report of the medical Board of CRPF in respect of 30 petitioners, who appeared before the Board. Mr. Ajit Kumar (now the Advocate General of the State) submits that the State has got no intention to challenge the findings of the Medical Board of CRPF so far as these 36 petitioners are concerned. The learned A.G. refers to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, filed today, which is sworn by one Chandra Prakash Pandey, Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, and submits the measure which the State intends to take to remedy the illegalities. It is necessary to quote paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, which reads as under: “14. That it is further submitted that the office of the answering respondent also issued letter No. 4193 dated 29.7.17 to the DGP seeking a report with opinion with respect to the direction's contained in the aforementioned order of this Hon'ble Court in the captioned matter. The Chairman, JSSC and the DGP, Jharkhand, sent their response vide letter No. 1482 dated 2.8.2012 and letter No. 1074 dated 2.8.2017 respectively. In the light of the report/opinion of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and the Police Head Quarters, the State Government has approved following course of action: (i) An Appellate/Apex Medical Board may be constituted comprising a specialists/Senior Medical Officer for medical test. In the light of the report/opinion of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and the Police Head Quarters, the State Government has approved following course of action: (i) An Appellate/Apex Medical Board may be constituted comprising a specialists/Senior Medical Officer for medical test. (ii) Since this matter is related to competitive Examination conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, remedical examination of those candidates, who secured higher marks in the merit list than that of category wise the recommended candidates, may be conducted. (iii) The candidates fulfilling the criteria at serial (ii) of the decision shall submit their earlier medical report to the appellate/Apex Medical Board and the said Board shall submit its opinion/report after examining the candidates afresh. The Appellate/Apex Medical Board shall also examine the records/medical reports issued by the earlier medical Board. The said Board shall also report as to whether any false report has been submitted by the earlier constituted medical Board. The Appellate/Apex Medical Board shall identify such medical officers submitting false report and shall forward the same to the department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare and the said department in turn, would proceed with disciplinary and legal actions against the erring medical officer. (iv) For the aforementioned medical re-examination a committee may be constituted by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare comprising Director in Chief of Health Services with Officer of the rank of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in order to ensure transparent and fair medical test. (v) Digital Camera/CCTV may be installed at the place of Medical Test in order to maintain transparent and fair Medical Test. Medical Test of the candidates shall be conducted after due physical verification through Biometric System. (vi) For such type of competitive examination for appointment in different cadres to be held in future a provision may be made for appeal before the Appellate/Apex Medical Board for such candidates who fail in medical test by the medical board wherever medical test is mandatory for selection of candidates. (vii) A fresh revised merit list may be prepared after the candidates are declared fit by the Appellate/Apex Medical Board and accordingly selected candidates may be appointed against the vacancies.” From perusal of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, this Court feels that the State has intention to correct the wrong/illegalities/irregularities committed by the Medical Board. (vii) A fresh revised merit list may be prepared after the candidates are declared fit by the Appellate/Apex Medical Board and accordingly selected candidates may be appointed against the vacancies.” From perusal of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, this Court feels that the State has intention to correct the wrong/illegalities/irregularities committed by the Medical Board. Thus, keeping in view of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, I direct the State to take appropriate action in terms of their undertaking given in the said paragraph within three months from today. After completing the fresh medical examination, the State will prepare a fresh Merit list. After preparing the fresh merit list of each category, the State will also issue fresh appointment letter to the selected candidates as per the fresh merit list and the State will also take an appropriate action to remove the candidates who are found medically unfit in re-examination and have been appointed. Also the persons whose name will not find place in the fresh merit list, prepared after medical re-examination, if already appointed, will also be removed, as their appointment will be illegal and void. So far as fresh medical examination is concerned, the State undertakes to conduct the same in terms of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, filed today. This Court also directs that 30 petitioners, except the petitioners whose names are appearing at Sl. Nos. 11, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 36, will be treated to be medically fit and they will not be subject to medical re-examination. The State will also give notice to the last selected candidates of each category to be medically re-examined because there is possibility that after conducting fresh medical re-examination, the position in the merit list and the cut off marks may change in each category. The State is also directed to declare the marks of the last selected candidate, as per statement given in paragraph 14 of the said counter affidavit. After completing the entire process, the State will file an affidavit, which must be sworn by the Secretary of the Department. The affidavit will suggest about the action which has been taken or intended to be taken against the Medical Board, who have wrongly disqualified these 30 petitioners. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned J.C. to A.G. for necessary communication. List this case after three months.” 12. The affidavit will suggest about the action which has been taken or intended to be taken against the Medical Board, who have wrongly disqualified these 30 petitioners. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned J.C. to A.G. for necessary communication. List this case after three months.” 12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioners were examined by the Medical Board of Central Industrial Security Force for appointment vide letter dated 22.03.2018 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi and out of 36 petitioners, 30 petitioners were declared medically fit by the Central Industrial Security Force Medical Board which was constituted in terms of order dated 11.08.2017, but the appointment letters were issued in favour of 29 persons only and could not be issued in favour of one Rajnish Kumar as he was absent. 13. In view of the aforesaid development, the writ petitioners filed one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3794 of 2020 for withdrawal of the writ petition stating therein that facing re-medical test conducted in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioners were appointed and in that view of the matter they did not want to press this matter and sought permission for withdrawal of the writ petition. 14. It is required to refer herein that in the meanwhile, by virtue of re-medical examination, the appointees who have been found medically unfit, have been terminated from service vide order dated 03.07.2018, 22.07.2018, 23.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 25.07.2018, 27.07.2018, 30.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 02.08.2018, 13.09.2018 and 31.03.2019. The aforesaid orders of termination were challenged in several writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.4489 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.1905 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.4351 of 2018, 4609 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.5001 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.6359 of 2018. 15. The other writ petitions were directed to be heard along with the instant writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017. 16. The aforesaid orders of termination were challenged in several writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.4489 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.1905 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.4351 of 2018, 4609 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.5001 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.6359 of 2018. 15. The other writ petitions were directed to be heard along with the instant writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017. 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of terminated employees/petitioners in other writ petitions, save and except W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017, has made objection of the prayer made by the writ petitioners in I.A. No. 3794 of 2020 which was filed for withdrawal of the writ petition by making submission before the writ court that the writ petition needs to be decided because only on the basis of the interim order the petitioners have got the appointment letter and opposed the withdrawal of the writ petition. 17. Learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid submission, has heard the matter on merit along with the other writ petitions. 18. The plea was taken before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017 that in view of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherefrom it would be evident that the State has got the intention to correct the wrong but after the order passed by the writ court dated 11.08.2017 by constituting a Medical Board. The Medical Board was constituted and the persons who were declared to be medically fit, the requirement to prepare a fresh list has been considered and accordingly, a fresh merit list was prepared in which the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No.4489 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.1905 of 2019, W.P.(S) No.4351 of 2018, 4609 of 2018, W.P.(S) No.5001 of 2018 and W.P.(S) No.6359 of 2018 since have been found not medically fit, therefore, they have been terminated from service vide order dated 03.07.2018, 22.07.2018, 23.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 25.07.2018, 27.07.2018, 30.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 02.08.2018, 13.09.2018 and 31.03.2019. 19. The Commission has taken the plea that at this stage the Commission has got no role since the Apex Medical Board was constituted pursuant to the order of the Court and the State has acted in pursuance thereto. 20. 19. The Commission has taken the plea that at this stage the Commission has got no role since the Apex Medical Board was constituted pursuant to the order of the Court and the State has acted in pursuance thereto. 20. Learned senior counsel, objected the prayer of the writ petitioners for withdrawal of the writ petition since according to him the Medical Board was constituted and the petitioners have got appointment on the basis of the interim order. 21. He has further taken the plea that the writ petitioners of the other writ petitions were not party in the writ petition and in their absence the said order has been passed. 22. He has further submitted that since there was order of this Court in that regard, the writ petitioners had appeared in the reconstituted Medical Board. 23. His further plea before the learned Single Judge was that without any show cause notice the writ petitioners in other cases have been dismissed from service. 24. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has also taken into consideration that fact that fresh merit list was prepared on the basis of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017, after constituting a fresh Medical Board consisting of the experts of the CISF. 25. The learned Single Judge has also considered the stand of the State under paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, which was noted down in the order dated 11.08.2017. 26. According to learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners in other cases had appeared before the Medical Board without any protest. The writ petitioners of other cases did not file any intervention application in this writ petition to get themselves impleaded. The interim order dated 11.08.2017 has not been challenged by the petitioners of other writ petitions. 27. The State has admitted their irregularity at paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. The petitioners of this case have already been appointed. 28. The writ petitioners of other cases did not file any intervention application in this writ petition to get themselves impleaded. The interim order dated 11.08.2017 has not been challenged by the petitioners of other writ petitions. 27. The State has admitted their irregularity at paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. The petitioners of this case have already been appointed. 28. In the light of these circumstances, according to learned Single Judge, particularly considering that the writ petitioners of other cases have appeared before the reconstituted Medical Board without challenging the interim order, not tried to get themselves impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and in the light of these facts, on the protest of the writ petitioners of other writ petitions, the writ petition cannot be dismissed. 29. Learned Single Judge has further opined that the Court is not expert to examine the Medical Report and that too of the Apex Medical Board which was constituted pursuant to the order of the Court. 30. The learned Single Judge has further observed that even the decision of the reconstituted Medical Board has not been challenged either in this writ petition or other writ petitions. 31. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that pursuant to the order of this Court, which has attained finality as it has not been challenged or any modification has been sought by the other writ petitioners, as such, the order dated 11.08.2017 has been made absolute. 32. LPAs have been filed by the writ petitioners/appellants questioning the order of termination dated 03.07.2018, 22.07.2018, 23.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 25.07.2018, 27.07.2018, 30.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 02.08.2018, 13.09.2018 and 31.03.2019 with a further direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioners on the post which was being held by them and to allow them to work as such. 33. 32. LPAs have been filed by the writ petitioners/appellants questioning the order of termination dated 03.07.2018, 22.07.2018, 23.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 25.07.2018, 27.07.2018, 30.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 02.08.2018, 13.09.2018 and 31.03.2019 with a further direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioners on the post which was being held by them and to allow them to work as such. 33. It appears from the factual aspect as being reflected from the order passed by the learned writ court as also from the order passed by Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue on merit in L.P.A. No.318 of 2020 that on the basis of commission of irregularity in the matter of fulfilling the post of Constable, writ petition was filed being W.P.(S) No.3239 of 2017 by the unsuccessful candidates seeking a direction upon the respondents to declare the 36 writ petitioners as medically fit and to consider for appointment on the post of Constable in the Jharkhand Armed Police. 34. The basis of the claim was that they have been declared passed in the preliminary test as well as main examination and their respective roll numbers have been reflected in the merit list which was prepared after main examination and thereafter they had been sent for medical test and were declared successful but they have not been appointed. 35. The State has filed counter affidavit also the affidavit was filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 36. The report of the Medical Board was brought on record in respect of 36 petitioners. The learned writ court, after going through the report of the Medical Board, has found that all the 36 petitioners were declared medically unfit. Since there were two divergent views; one by the Medical Board and one by the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital. 37. The learned Single Judge vide order 07.07.2017, requested the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to assist this Court in getting these 36 candidates examined by the neutral Medical Board. 38. The writ court, vide order dated 07.07.2017, as such, had directed the petitioners to appear before the D.I.G.(Medical), C.R.P.F., Ranchi, Composite Hospital, Sambo, Ranchi with a request to the D.I.G. to get these petitioners medically examined and submit a report to this Court. 39. The Medical Board of the C.R.P.F. found that 30 petitioners, out of 36, were found to be medically fit. 39. The Medical Board of the C.R.P.F. found that 30 petitioners, out of 36, were found to be medically fit. One petitioner, i.e., Petitioner No.11, had not appeared before the Board and rest 5 petitioners whose names were appearing at Sl. No.18, 19, 22, 24 and 36 were found medically unfit. 40. The learned writ court, in view of the fresh medical report, has directed for preparation of a fresh merit list and after preparing fresh merit list of each category, the State had also been directed to issue fresh appointment letter to the selected candidates as per fresh merit list and further, the State had also been directed to take appropriate action to remove the candidates who have been appointed but found medically unfit in re-examination. 41. The further direction had been passed that the persons whose names will not find place in the fresh merit list prepared after medical re-examination, if already appointed, will also be removed as their appointment will be illegal and void. 42. The further direction had been passed upon the State that the State will also give notice to the last selected candidate of each category to be medically re-examined because there is possibility that after conducting fresh medical re-examination the position in the merit list and the cut-off marks may change in each category. 43. The State had also been directed to declare the marks of the last selected candidate, as per statement given at paragraph 14 of the said counter affidavit. 44. The State had also been directed to file affidavit after completing the entire process, to be sworn by the Secretary of the concerned department. 45. It further appears that in terms of the said order, process has been completed, as would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, more particularly, paragraph 16 and 18 thereof. 46. It appears from the statement made at paragraph 16 wherein the writ petitioner has been found to be medically fit, for ready reference, the statement made at paragraph 16 is being referred hereunder as :- “16. That it is stated that Petitioner after issuance of the aforesaid notice for re-medical test by the Apex Medical Board, appeared before the Apex medical board for his re-medical test and Apex medical board on re-medical test has found Petitioner medically fit.” 47. That it is stated that Petitioner after issuance of the aforesaid notice for re-medical test by the Apex Medical Board, appeared before the Apex medical board for his re-medical test and Apex medical board on re-medical test has found Petitioner medically fit.” 47. Further, it appears from paragraph 18 that the petitioner belongs to the EBC-I category and has secured 185 marks. But in the re-casted list, the last selected candidate under EBC-I category, has secured 188 marks, as such, the petitioner was not recommended for appointment in the re-casted merit list, for ready reference, the paragraph 18 is being quoted and referred hereunder as :- “18. That it is not out of place to mention here that petitioner belongs to E.B.C-I category and has secured 185 marks and in the re-casted list the last recommended candidate under E.B.C-I category has secured 188 marks and as such petitioner was not recommend for appointment in re-casted merit list.” 48. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has been declared to be medically fit. But, it appears from the order dated 11.08.2017 that specific direction was passed by the learned writ court for re-examination of the unsuccessful candidates along with the successful candidates so far as their medical fitness is concerned. 49. The direction has also been passed, based upon the medical fitness certificate for preparation of the fresh merit list by re-casting the earlier one. The moment the order has been passed by the learned writ court for preparation of fresh merit list by re-casting the earlier one on the basis of medical fitness, there cannot be any dispute that while at the time of preparation of merit list the overall performance of one or the other candidates is to be seen and considered, meaning thereby, the further criteria for assessing the performance of one or the other candidates, i.e., performance in the written test along with the medical fitness are required to be seen. 50. It needs to refer herein as per the advertisement that the mode of selection is based upon the performance of one or the other candidates in the preliminary test followed by the main examination apart from the medical fitness, for ready reference the condition of the advertisement is quoted hereunder as :- 51. 50. It needs to refer herein as per the advertisement that the mode of selection is based upon the performance of one or the other candidates in the preliminary test followed by the main examination apart from the medical fitness, for ready reference the condition of the advertisement is quoted hereunder as :- 51. Therefore, it is not a case where the recruitment is only to be made on the basis of the medical fitness of one or the other candidates, rather, the medical fitness is one of the criteria for inducting one or the other candidates in service depending upon their performance in the preliminary and main examination. 52. Although, the writ petitioner has been declared to be medically fit but at the time of preparation of re-casted merit list which was in terms of the order passed by the learned writ court having been affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.318 of 2020, the recruiting agency has found that the petitioner has secured 185 marks in EBC-I category. 53. It is evident from paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission which is on paper book that the last selected candidate under the EBC-I category has secured 188 marks. 54. Therefore, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has taken the ground that since the petitioner has secured less marks than the last selected candidate under the EBC-I category, to which the writ petitioner belongs, he has not been recommended for appointment. 55. Further, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he has not challenged the re-casted merit list ever. 56. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion in entirety, is of the view that merely because the petitioner has been declared to be medically fit, he cannot be inducted in the service, since, on re-casting of the merit list he has been found to have secured less marks than the last selected candidate under the EBC-I category as per the statement made by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission at paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit as quoted and referred hereinabove. 57. Accordingly, we are of the view that the instant petition lacks merit, hence the same is hereby dismissed.