Point of Law: Technicalities can never mar the substantive right of the parties, if there is a specific mention and reference of the reflection of the registration of the certificate of medical practitioner, who has issued the certificate, the details of which are otherwise available to the Union of India with a little effort and when none of the certificates has been found bogus, concocted or issued by any unauthorised person, this omission on the part of the doctor of reference of registration number on the certificate, must not be given unnecessary amplification and, therefore, action on the part of the respondent authorities would warrant interference

JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. Present group of petitions are preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, raising identical questions of facts and law and therefore, these petitions are being decided by a common judgement and order.

2. Facts in the capsulized form for the purpose of adjudication, are drawn from the Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2020, which are as follows:

2.1 The respondent authority had issued an online advertisement for the post of Constables (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in ASSAM Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018.

2.2 There are in all 8 different categories in the advertisement like SSF- Special Security Force, CRPF-Central Reserve Police Force, CISF- Central Industrial Security Force, BSF- Border Security Force, Assam Rifles, ITBP- Indo Tibet Border Police, NIA- National Investigation Agency, and SSB.

2.3 The petitioner falls in Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, who applied for the post of CISF and later on, has given preference for the post of CRPF. On-line form for the registration was to be filled-in up to 20.08.2018.

2.4 The examination for the posts was conducted on 14.02.2019 and the petitioner cleared the same in the month of June, 2019. The petitioner appeared for the physical test conducted on 31.08.2019 and got qualified in the said test on the very day. On 10.01.2020, the petitioner was called for medical examination and he reached at the venue at around 7:30 a.m. in the morning.

2.5 After the preliminary medical examination, the candidates were served with fruits, biscuits, bananas and certain desserts. The candidates were then taken to Shalby hospital for chest x-ray, urine and blood test. Kiton bodies were found from the urine sample of the petitioner and, therefore, he was declared unfit. Thus, PST/PET Test of the petitioner was held in his favour, however, his detailed medical examination reflected that he was held medically unfit.

3. While declaring him unfit by respondent No.5, it was conveyed to him that he can prefer an appeal against the findings of the medical examination and can also apply for review of the medical examination in the enclosed Form No.2 of Constable (General Duty) Exam, 2018 along with the demand draft of Rs. 25/- after obtaining necessary medical certificate from medical practitioner (Special Medical Officer) of the Government District Hospital and above as per Form N.3 Constable (GD) Exam, 2018 so as to reach the addressee with the period of 15 days from the date of medical examination, failing which the candidature for the recruitment would be cancelled without any further notice. It also made a mention that if the appeal was not signed by the candidate and if the medical fitness certificate is not signed by the doctor, appeal would be summarily rejected. It was also further stated that the finger thumb impression and candidate's signature on the fitness certificate shall be attested by the concerned medical practitioner and if the same is received without attestation, the same would be rejected summarily.

3.1 It is averred by the petitioner that appeal for review of medical examination was preferred within the stipulated time period and the same came to be refused only on the ground that registration number of the doctor had not been reflected in the fitness certificate in Form No.3 by the Doctor, who certified in favour of the petitioner.

3.2 In short, it is a serious grievance of the petitioner that medical fitness of the petitioner was turned down merely because the doctor, who certified Form No.3 had not mentioned the registration number.

3.3 The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court lamenting that this kind of stand of respondents No.4 and 5 is unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd.

3.4 The prayers sought for in the petition are as follows:-

"9) On the grounds stated above and others that may be urged at the time of hearing of this petition, the petitioner prays that:-

A. Your lordships may be