declared 'fit' by the Appeal Medical Board on 13* August, 2015. Therefore, he was offered enrolment in the next intake in January, 2016. These are special and extraordinary cases which were dealt with to ensure that no injustice was caused and suffered for want of lapses and fault of the authorities. The petitioner cannot claim parity with them. We are not impressed with the argument that the Medical Advisor should not have directed re-examination by the Appeal Medical Board even if he felt that there were lapses and failure in following the procedure prescribed. This would be unjust and unfair. Of course, giving undue or uncalled for advantage to any candidate would be unacceptable and would be frowned upon, but no such assumption and presumption can be made. These grounds obviously would not warrant and cannot be a ground to issue Mandamus or direction in favour of the petitioner. 17. The respondents have also clarified that the waitlisted candidate, who was subsequently declared medically ‘fit’ by the Appeal Medical Board as per the instructions (Annexure R-l) dated 20* March, 2006 could be granted enrolment after expiry of the select list or even on becoming overage, after approval from the Competent Authority. Approval from the Competent Authority was taken in case of the waitlisted candidate, who was declared medically ‘fit’ by the Appeal Medical Board. Approval has been enclosed as Annexure P-2.
