Dismissed

Chandrakant Kumar v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC8 Apr 2013CWJC/12741/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an application under Article 226 seeking appointment in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force. The court held that since the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's medical fitness, it was not appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The application for appointment on the post of Head Constable was dismissed.

Chandrakant Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12741 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Chandrakant Kumar S/o Sri Nityanand Prasad R/o Village + P.O.Chintamani Chak, P.S.- Mokama, District-Patna (Bihar), Presently residing at Village- Bakhtiyarpur, (East Tola), P.O. + P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, DistrictPatna (Bihar)

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi

¶6

The Inspector General (Special) Frontier ITB Police, West Block, Wing2, Sector-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General (Establishment) office of Directorate General, I.T.B. Police, Block No.2, Sector - C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110003

¶8

The Assistant Commandant (Office) Special Frontier, I.T.B. Police, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Ground Floor, West Block-I, Wing-2, Sector-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066

¶9

The Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board For The Post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial), I.T.B. Police Base Hospital, I.T.B.P., Opposite of Batra Hospital, Tigri Camp, New Delhi – 110062

¶10

The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Govt. of India, New Delhi

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Asstt. Solicitor General Mr. Rashid Rais, CGC

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶15

8 08-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents for appointing him on the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial) Group ‘C’ in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force pursuant to selection process undertaken by the respondents on the basis of the advertisement as per Annexure-1.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.12741 of 2012 (8) dt.08-04-2013

¶18

2/6

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the advertisement (Annexure-1), the petitioner submitted his application well within the time for the purpose of his appointment on the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial) Group ‘C’ in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force. In the aforesaid selection process, the documents furnished by the petitioner were verified by the competent authority and he was found eligible. Thereafter, he was screened for physical standards test. He, having been declared successful in physical standards test, was allowed to appear in written test, skill test as also in the interview held by the respondents and finally, the petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, final select list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 166 in the select list as per Annexure-5.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the medical test held on 1.3.2012 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was having defective vision. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has prefect vision in both his eyes, and basis for rejection of his candidature on medical ground was wholly illegal and on certain extraneous consideration. In that view of the matter, the petitioner got himself medically checked at Rajendra Nagar Super Speciality Ophthalmic

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.12741 of 2012 (8) dt.08-04-2013

¶22

3/6

¶23

Science Center, Patna on 12.3.2012 where the doctor declared him medically fit and having prefect vision of 6/6 in both his eyes. On the basis of the said medical report, he represented his case before higher authorities for his review medical examination of both his eyes, whereafter, by a letter dated 8.5.2012 (Annexure-9) the petitioner was called for re-medical examination at Base Hospital, ITBP Tigri Camp, New Delhi on 18.5.2012. The petitioner claims to have appeared on the date fixed for his re-medical test. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his re-medical examination was held on 18.5.2012, but result of said review medical test was not communicated to him. On the basis of these pleadings, he has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents for his appointment on the post of Head Constable.

¶24

In compliance of the order passed by this Court counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para-5 of the counter affidavit it has been admitted that the physical efficiency test of the petitioner was held on 4.10.2011 at Ranchi, and, on being successful, he was allowed to appear in the written test/skill test conducted on 11.12.2011 and 18.1.2012 respectively at Ranchi, and in those tests also the petitioner was declared successful.

¶25

However, it is the case of the respondents that when

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.12741 of 2012 (8) dt.08-04-2013

¶27

4/6

¶28

the petitioner was called for detailed medical examination, which was conducted on 1.3.2012; it was found that he was having defective vision. It is also the case of the respondents that on the basis of the representation filed by the petitioner re-medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on 18.5.2012 by the Medical Board at Base Hospital, Indo Tibetan Border Police, New Delhi and during course of re-medical examination it was found that the petitioner has got contact lens fixed in both his eyes, and therefore, on the ground of refractive surgery (Lasik), his candidature was finally rejected. Full details regarding holding of different tests and re-medical test of the petitioner have been given in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit.

¶29

In view of the above statements made in the counter affidavit a reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner today in the Court itself during the course of hearing of the case, and in paras- 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, an attempt has been made to dispute the correctness of the findings recorded by the Medical Board of the respondents.

¶30

After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial) in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (a Para Military Force), but his candidature was finally

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.12741 of 2012 (8) dt.08-04-2013

¶32

5/6

¶33

rejected on medical ground of having defective vision. The members of the force are required to discharge very onerous duty, at most of the time, at the border of the country. Therefore, the members of the force are required to be fit by all standards viz physically, mentally and medically. If a person is not medically fit or having a defective vision, then he will have to face great difficulty in discharging his onerous duty at the border of the country.

¶34

Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that on the basis of disputed question of fact a writ cannot be issued by this Court. The petitioner claims that he is medically fit and is having prefect vision of 6/6 in both the eyes, whereas the respondents have specifically asserted that on the basis of medical examination of the petitioner twice, which includes his examination even by the Medical Board, his vision was found to be defective.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid disputed questions of facts particularly regarding medical fitness of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial) in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, which is a Para Military Force.

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.12741 of 2012 (8) dt.08-04-2013

¶37

6/6

¶38

In the result, this application has to fail and it is,

¶39

accordingly, dismissed.

¶40

RPS/-

¶41

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Chandrakant Kumar v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Kumar v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balmiki Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Jagdish Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dheeraj Kumar Sinha Vs The Bihar State Road Transport Cor. and Ors.

Chandradeo Poddar Vs the Bihar State Copt.Land Devp

Pravin Chandra Vs Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rahish Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.