JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam and Ms. Ritu Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Shreesha Sinha.

2. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. These batch of writ petitions arise out of common question of facts and law and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and has been decided by this common judgment.

W.P. (S) No.2393 of 2020 (Ranjan Kumar and Sumit Kumar Tiwari Versus Union of India & Others)

Pursuant to advertisement of Staff Selection Commission bearing Advertisement No.F.No.3/2/2017-P&P-I for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSP and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) for total 54,953 posts. The petitioners appeared in the said examination and was medically examined which is called Detailed Medical Examination (DME). In the Detailed Medical Examination, the petitioner no.1 was found unfit and reasons have been assigned “haemorrhoids and varicose veins over left lower limbs” that is why the petitioner no.1 was not selected. The petitioner no.2 was found unfit due to defective colour vision. On these grounds, the petitioners were not selected. The petitioners in terms of the advertisement filed the appeal for Review Medical Board. The appeal was rejected on the ground that as per description in Form-3, that rejection still exists and it was said that there was no error of judgment in the findings of DME. So far the petitioner no.2 is concerned, one Form-1 is not attached with the affidavit. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have approached this Court.

W.P. (S) No.2419 of 2020 (Vikash Kumar and Madan Kumar Versus Union of India & Others

In the said examination, these two petitioners have also applied. So far DME of petitioner no.1 is concerned, he was found unfit due to “diminished vision 6/9 in both eye and contact of right finger due to bones and the petitioner no.2 was found unfit due to “defective colour vision, scotic spiral generology and cubitus valgus over left elbow”. The petitioners preferred appeal for Review Medical Board which was rejected as specialist opinion not obtained and so far petitioner no.2 is concerned one additional signature of candidate is not attested in column 3. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

W.P. (S) No.2771 of 2020 (Nitish Kumar Yadav Versus Union of India & Others)

In the said examination, the petitioner appeared and the petitioner was found unfit due to B/L hydrocele and B/L nasal palylp. The petitioner filed appeal for Review Medical Board calling the criteria attaching Form 3 which was rejected on the ground that description in Form 3 (Medical Fitness Certificate), the cause of rejection still exists and there is no error of judgment in findings of DME. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

W.P. (S) No.2828 of 2020 (Ramnath Paswan Versus Union of India & Others)

In the said examination, the petitioner appeared and wherein in DME was held and the petitioner was found unfit due to diminished vision in both eyes. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed appeal before Medical Board which was rejected on the ground that the reason for medical fitness in DME was not attached (Form 1). Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in terms of Clause 9(E) of recruitment scheme, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority if further examination by a Government Doctor and any