Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1560 (JHR)

Suman Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand

2025-07-28

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Reasoned Order as contained in Memo No. 6607, dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-11), passed by the 5th Respondent; whereby the representation of the Petitioner for issuance of letter of appointment on the post of Forest Guard in the District of Bokaro has been rejected. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to issue the appointment letter to the Petitioner against the post of Forest Guard in the District of Bokaro, which is still lying vacant within a specified period. 3. The brief facts of the case are that J.S.S.C issued advertisement No.03/2014 for the post of forest guard and the petitioner applied for the same for Bokaro district. Petitioner appeared in the preliminary test and secured 78% and thereafter admit card for the mains examination was issued and his allotted roll no. was 11010026. He appeared in the said examination and secured 62.26%. Thereafter admit card was issued to the petitioner for medical and physical test to be held on 09.12.2016. The Petitioner appeared before a medical board for medical and physical test. The Petitioner was declared fit by the said medical board. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 asked the successful candidates in Preliminary examination, Mains Examination and Medical & Physical test to appear for verification documents between 18.01.2017 to 27.01.2017. The Roll Number of the Petitioner also finds place in the List of 45 candidates for the District of Bokaro he was asked to appear for verification of the documents on 19.01.2017. The Respondent No.5 issued Final Merit List on the basis of result of Jharkhand Forest Guards Competitive Examination, 2014 (Mains) and after their medical and physical tests in respect of the candidates of 7 Districts and so far, the Bokaro District is concerned; 32 candidates were shown in the Merit List with a note that result of one (1) candidate for Bokaro District was kept pending. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P.S. Case No.5559 of 2017 for issuance of appointment letter to him which was disposed of by Order dated 21.05.2020 by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach Respondent authorities by filing representation annexing all necessary documentary proof and if such representation is made by him, a reasoned order disclosing relevant facts shall be passed, if the petitioner is not found eligible for appointment. The Petitioner submitted a representation before the Respondent no.2 on 24.06.2020 and thereafter, Reasoned Order dated 21.09.2020 was passed by the Respondent No. 2 rejecting the representation of the Petitioner solely on the ground (although he was declared medically fit by the medical board) that subsequently the Civil Surgeon, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur declared him unfit and thus, the claim of the Petitioner for appointment has been rejected. Hence, this Writ application. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner qualified P.T as well as mains examination and he appeared in medical and physical test on 09.12.2016 where he was also declared fit and thereafter, he was also called for document verification; however, his name was not in final merit list. Thereafter, he moved before this Court and pursuant to direction of this court a reasoned Order has been passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner got himself examined by Civil Assistant Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Chandankiyari on 10.07.2019 and he was found physically fit. He further submits that the alleged partial colour blindness could not be ground to declare Petitioner as medically unfit and the Civil Surgeon, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur being one of the members of the medical board declaring the Petitioner as medical fit could not have changed his opinion without consent of other members. He further submits that the Civil Surgeon, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur being not an eye specialist could not have opined that partial colour blindness is a ground of medical unfitness and the 5th Respondent has acted illegally in relying upon the unilateral and ex-parte as well as whimsical opinion of Civil Surgeon, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for his appointment. He further relied upon the judgement National Thermal power Corporation Kahalagoan & others vs Nakul das & others, (2014) 9 SCC 385 . He further relied upon the judgement National Thermal power Corporation Kahalagoan & others vs Nakul das & others, (2014) 9 SCC 385 . Relying on the aforesaid argument learned counsel submits that impugned order should be quashed and letter of appointment be issued to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents after relying to its counter affidavit submits that it is not out of place to mention here that in the medical test report dated 09.12.2016, Petitioner was declared "Color Blind", but the column of Fit or Unfit was left blank by the medical board (Annexure-D). As a matter of fact, several complaints were raised by the various candidates and on the basis of those complaints re-medical test was conducted on 26.12.2016 and it is not out of place to mention here that re-medical test of the Petitioner was also conducted on 26.12.2016 and in the medical report dated 26.12.2016 in the column of Colour Blindness/Night Blindness, "partial colour blindness" was mentioned; however, the Petitioner was declared medically fit (Annexure-E). The above discrepancies were found in the re-medical test report of several candidates and a list of 17 such candidate along with their medical report in original form was sent by Examination Controller to Civil Surgeon-cum-chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter no. 848 dated 26.05.2017 for the opinion regarding the contradictory opinion of the medical board where some of the candidates having partial colour blindness were declared unfit and some others having same medical condition were declared fit. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, east Singhbhum vide letter dated 31.05.2017 opined J.S.S.C that as per para-12 of part-2 of the Notification No. 5113 dated 18.12.2012 of the Department of Forest and environment, “Colour Blind” candidates are unfit for recommendation. Hence these 17 candidates are declared “unfit”. He lastly submits that the selection process in terms of Advertisement No. 03/2014 for appointment of Forest Guard in District-Bokaro has already been completed on 27.06.2017 and thereafter no fresh recommendation for appointment on the post of Forest Guard for District- Bokaro was made by the J.S.S.C and the Petitioner is unsuccessful candidate and not eligible for appointment on the post of Forest Guard in view of the fact and circumstances stated hereinabove; as such, no relief should be granted to the Petitioner. 6. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it appears that Petitioner has applied for forest guard for the Bokaro District and he qualified P.T as well as mains examination and he appeared in medical and physical test on 09.12.2016 where he was also declared fit and thereafter he was also called for document verification; however, his name was not in final merit list. Thereafter, he moved before this Court and pursuant to direction of this court, a reasoned Order has been passed rejecting the claim of petitioner which is impugned herein. 7. It transpires from the pleadings that in the ‘Medical Report’ dated 09.12.2016, Petitioner was declared "Colour blind", but the column of Fit or Unfit was left blank by the Medical Board. Thereafter, re-medical test was conducted on 26.12.2016 wherein Petitioner was declared medically fit by the Medical Board. However, in the column of colour blindness/night blindness, "partial colour blindness" was mentioned. This court finds that there is contradiction in two medical reports issued by the Medical Board and Petitioner has also annexed medical report issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon- cum-Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Chandankiyari on 10.07.2019 wherein he was found physically fit. 8. The issue with regard to contradiction in report of medical examination has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case National Thermal power Corporation Kahalagoan (Supra); for brevity, the relevant para is quoted herein below: “19. Pursuant to the orders dated 9-5-2013 directing NTPC to appoint the selected candidates, two out of the aforesaid five appellants have been given appointment. However, cases of other three appellants are rejected as in the medical examination conducted, they are found medically unfit as suffering from “colour blindness”. They are Appellants 1, 4 and 5. The learned counsel appearing for these appellants submitted that their medical examination was done in haste; they had made representation to NTPC regarding constitution of Medical Board to re-examine their cases to which NTPC was not agreeing; they had got themselves medically examined from the same hospital and same doctor, namely, NTPC, Kahalagaon Hospital and also outside doctor and they had duly certified that these appellants were not suffering from “colour blindness”. Additional affidavit dated 26-6-2005 is filed including the result of their medical examination from out-patient department of NTPC, Kahalagaon Hospital, as well as opinion of some private doctors in support of the aforesaid submission. 20. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that NTPC constitutes another Medical Board for re-examination of these three appellants and decide their fate on the basis of the opinion given and take further action on the basis of opinion given by the reconstituted Medical Board. This appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.” 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and in view of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal power Corporation Kahalagoan (supra), the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-11), passed by the 5th Respondent, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Further, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be remitted to concerned Respondent to constitute another ‘Medical Board’ for re-examination and decide the fate of the Petitioner on the basis of the opinion given by the Medical Board. Ordered accordingly. 10. Accordingly, the concerned Respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on the basis of the opinion given by the reconstituted medical board. Needless to say, if the Petitioner is found to be medically fit and otherwise fulfills the requisite conditions; then appointment letter be issued in his favour by the concerned respondent no.5. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A if any also stands disposed of.