Honble VERMA, J.–This court vide order dated 24.11.2001 had directed for getting third medical opinion about the respondent No.3 with the further direction that respondent No.3 shall make it convenient to appear before the Medical Board i.e. Army R & R Institution and Hospital Delhi Cantt. and that after conducting the examination the report shall be forwarded to this court. The case was ordered be listed for further proceedings after receipt of the report.

(2). The above said order dated 24.11.2001 was challenged before the Division Bench by filing SAW No. 1070/2001. The SAW came to be decided on 6.12.2001, whereby the parties have been directed to prefer to argue the matter finally before the Single Judge on 10.12.2001, irrespective of the fact whether the respondent No.3 had appeared before the Medical Board or not. The reference is made of the order dated 6.12.2001.

(3). In pursuance of the order dated 6.12.2001, the case has been listed for final disposal. The parties had argued the matter.

(4). The petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 Jitendra Singh Sandu was declared successful in competitive examination under Roll No. 483871 and was placed at serial No. 64 on merit list. He was initially examined by the Medical Board in February, 2001. The following report was submitted:-

``(i) Fit for RAS & Allieds

(ii) Though he has complete Sacrilization of L5-S1. Vertebrae restricting his spinal terminal movements & squatting terminally, gait awkward, his hips, knee & ankle movements are normal & no neurovascular difficiency.

he may be considered for RPS if rule so permits.

(Dr. M.R. Goel) (Dr. Sudheer) (Dr. Kishore)

Chairman Member Medical Board

(5). For the reason that an observation was made by the Board that he had complete sacrilization of L5-S1 and Vertebrae restricting his spinal terminal movements, the State had thought it proper to constitute another Board and the respondent was examined by the Board on 4.6.2001. The following report was submitted:-

``-R-examined on 4.6.2001

-Spinal movements are within normal range

-squatting & cross leg sitting are within normal limits

-gait is within normal deviation limit

hip. knee & ankle movements are normal

no neurovascular difficiency

Fit for RAS/RPS/Allieds.

(Dr. M.R. Goel) (Dr. C.S. Sharma) Proff. & Head Ortho S.M.S. (Dr. Rakesh) Proff. & Unit S.M.S. Incharge Ortho

(Dr. M.K. Mathur) Proff. Ortho & Head Research & Rehabilitation Central, S.M.S. (Dr. Sudheer Mehta) Member (Dr. Kishore Kumar)

(6). The petitioner came up with the present writ petition stating therein that the Doctors who had examined the respondent No.3 in February, 2001 had noticed serious congenial deformity and locomotive defects which could render him unfit for being appointed as RPS. The respondent No.3 actually wanted to shift to RPS and for the reason that the Police service require more medical fitness, the petitioner came up with the grievance that the respondent No.3 be re examined as the first and second report of Medical examination contradicts each other. The further submission of petitioner was that the import and consequences of first report amounts to permanent defect for the field service and the duty to be performed by Police Officer those defects, as pointed out in first report were material. It is also submitted that as a matter fact the second report has been procured by respondent No.3, if he is examined afresh by independant board from out side of Rajasthan, at the expenses of the petitioner, the correct position would emerge.

(7). As per first medical report L-5 LS1. there is sperlisation of L5 and LS1 meaning thereby that these two vertibrae i.e. Lumbered and scral are united and there is no inter-vertibral joint space between these two vertibrae, hence, movement of L-5 and LS1 can be hampered in spinal movements which is a permanent defect; But the second medical board has only simply stated that spinal movements are within normal range which according to my opinion could not be so in view of the posi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document