Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1605 of 2012 ====================================================== Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, S/O Shri Ram Dayal Ray, R/O Village Mohanpur Karja, P.S.Barhara, Distt-Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Union Of India through the Director General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force New Delhi 2. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi 3. Inspector General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Group Centre, Mokama Ghat, Patna 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre Jhaphan, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Asst.S.G Mr. S.K.Sharma, C.G.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 06-03-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, questioning the correctness and validity of communication/order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure-10) made by respondent no.4, whereby offer of appointment issued to the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-7) has been withdrawn/cancelled. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2012 (3) dt.06-03-2013 2 / 5 3. Facts involved in the present proceeding are not in much controversy. In response to an advertisement dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure-1), the petitioner submitted an application for his appointment on the post of Constable/GD of Central Reserve Police Force ( in short ‘CRPF’). On being successful in the written test and physical efficiency test conducted by the personnel of CRPF, the petitioner was issued admit card for appearing in medical test on 26.4.2011. Medical test of the petitioner was conducted on 26.4.2011 by the Medical Officer, CRPF at Muzaffarpur GC CRPF, Jhaphan, but he was declared medically unfit. In view of declaration of the petitioner medically unfit, a letter dated 28.4.2011 was issued to the petitioner from the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Jhaphan, Muzaffarpur giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days, if he was not satisfied with the medical report declaring him unfit. The aforesaid letter dated 28.4.2011 has been brought on record as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. On receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 28.4.2011, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was accepted and a Medical Board was constituted by respondent no.5 for second round review/re-medical examination of the petitioner. The date for review medical examination was fixed on 1.6.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Board on 1.6.2011. The review/re-medical examination of the petitioner was conducted by the Medical Board and he was again declared medically unfit. This report of the Medical Board has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which bears the signature of the petitioner as well. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2012 (3) dt.06-03-2013 3 / 5 4. Though, the petitioner was declared medically unfit twice, yet it appears that due to some mistake offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-7). However, subsequently, on verification of the record the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure-10) was issued withdrawing/ cancelling the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that once the office of respondent no.4 had issued offer of appointment dated 31.10.2011 treating him to be medically fit, then the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 could not have been issued by him cancelling/withdrawing the offer of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was medically unfit. 6. In compliance of the order dated 24.1.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the facts stated above have not been disputed, but it has been asserted in paragraph 7 that the petitioner was declared medically unfit for his appointment on the post of constable ( GD) under CRPF, but due to clerical mistake he was issued offer of appointment dated 31.10.2011 ( Annexure- 7) and when the aforesaid clerical error was noticed, then the mistake was rectified and by the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 offer of appointment has been cancelled/withdrawn. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that a Court of Enquiry was constituted to enquire into the circumstances under which offer of appointment was erroneously issued to the petitioner. The order directing for constitution of the Court of Enquiry has been brought on record as Annexures-F and G to the counter affidavit filed on 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2012 (3) dt.06-03-2013 4 / 5 behalf of the respondents. 7. This matter was heard yesterday for some time. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that the Court of Enquiry was constituted for fixing responsibility for issuance of offer of appointment erroneously, this Court wanted to know from learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether the Court of Enquiry has recorded its finding and whether any of the officials of the CRPF posted under the respondent no. 4 has been held guilty. He was asked to take instructions and inform this Court about the logical conclusion of the Court of Enquiry. The matter was adjourned for today. In compliance of the oral observation/direction, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has today produced before this Court the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the respondent no.4 wherein on the basis of finding recorded by the Court of Enquiry six CRPF personnel have been held responsible for erroneous issuance of offer of appointment to the petitioner and they all have been named in that order and all of them have been issued warning letters for mistake committed by them. 8. After having heard the parties and on going through the record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was declared medically unfit twice and the petitioner was aware of the said outcome. The offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner due to clerical error committed by some officials of the CRPF and for that they have been awarded minor punishment. In the facts and circumstances, there is no question of further medical examination of the petitioner by any other Medical Board. The petitioner has not alleged mala fide either against the original 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2012 (3) dt.06-03-2013 5 / 5 Doctor who declared him medically unfit or against the members of the Medical Board who examined him for the second time and declared him medically unfit. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall
Decision
be no order as to costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)