JUDGMENT :

At the very outset, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is error in array of respondents and as such, he may be allowed to make necessary correction in cause title of the writ petition.

2. Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India does not object to the prayer.

3. In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to make necessary correction (deletion as well as substitution) in array of respondents by red ink.

4. Heard the parties.

5. At the very outset, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not relying upon the prayer no. 1 whereby direction has been sought for setting aside merit list prepared by the respondent in pursuant to advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018.

6. Petitioner has prayed for appropriate order declaring him to be qualified as he is medically fit to perform duty for which recruitment process was initiated. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to get the petitioner medically examined through qualified government doctor so that true picture of his medical status could be obtained for consideration of his case for appointment in terms of the advertisement. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to keep one seat vacant till finalization of instant writ petition.

7. The case of the petitioner in brief is that Advertisement being F.No. 3/2/2017 – P & P-I was floated by Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CFPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles as per the Recruitment Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for total 54,953 posts. Petitioner along with others appeared in the said examination and were medically examined which is called detailed medical examination. In the said detailed medical examination, petitioner was declared unfit and, thereafter, a review medical examination was held. In the said review medical examination also, petitioner was declared unfit. It is specific case of the petitioner that in the review medical examination, he was never examined but a certificate to that extent was issued in which he was declared medically unfit. It is also case of the petitioner that signature was obtained by the Doctor on blank format and later on the same was filled up which shows that petitioner was medically unfit. It is case of the petitioner that before going to the review medical board, he got himself examined by the Ultratech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. and had undergone medical examination on those issues which was mentioned in the medical report of the respondents and vide report dated 01.09.2020, he was found to be fit as there was no abnormality found. Since petitioner was declared unfit without any examination, though he was medically fit as per report of Ultratech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., he has knocked the door of this Court.

8. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that as per rules, a review medical examination was held by the respondents. The respondents ought to have examine the petitioner but without any examination, a report was furnished that 3 petitioner has been found unfit. Learned counsel submits that just on the date of examination, petitioner filed a complaint by way of representation that he was never examined and report was furnished but the same was not considered and without examination of the petitioner, unfitness report was issued. Learned counsel further submits that even Annexure-12, which is report of the consultant Rad