JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J.

This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 17.10.2022, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has since been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has merely reiterated the submissions that were advanced before the learned Single Judge: pursuant to the advertisement No.08/2015, dated 19.07.2015 (P-1), published by Haryana Staff Selection Commission, the appellant competed for selection to the post of Male Constable (General Duty) in the SC Category. He qualified the physical verification test and was amongst the selected candidates, whose names were recommended for consideration for appointment. However, upon being medically examined, he was declared unfit by the Ophthalmology (Eye) Department, Civil Hospital, Faridabad, on 25.06.2017, for he suffered from alternate divergent squint. Where-after, he underwent a minor surgery at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, ('PGIMER') and got his squint treated. In reference to his Out Patient Card, dated 19.09.2017 (P-4), issued by the Ophthalmology (Eye) Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh, his visual axis parallel was 6/6'. Accordingly, he moved the authorities, vide representation dated 12.09.2017 (P-5), seeking medical re-examination, which was carried out by a Medical Board of Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, ('PGIMS') on 09.10.2017 (P-11). And, as per the findings recorded by the Board, (comprised of three ophthalmologists), the appellant suffered from left divergent squint for near and distance. However, it was also observed in the report that fitness of the candidate for the post in question may be decided by the concerned authorities, as per rules. Thus, it is urged that, in terms of report dated 19.09.2017 (P-4), issued by the PGIMER, Chandigarh, the appellant suffered no such defect, and in any case, since the said report contradicted the opinion/report, dated 09.10.2017 (P-11) of the Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak, which showed that he had left divergent squint for near and distance, he ought to have been re-examined from some other equally competent Board. He submits that learned Single Judge seriously erred, as the fact that, post procedure the squint the appellant suffered from was removed by the specialist, was not even taken into account.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. Undoubtedly, the appellant was one of the successful candidates, who competed for selection to the post of Male Constables (General Duty). However, in terms of Rule 12.17 of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015, the candidates who were finally recommended for appointment as Constable were required to undergo a medical examination. And, thereon issued a certificate by Civil Surgeon essentially ensuring the candidate's fitness for the post. Concededly, on request of the Civil Surgeon (P-3), the Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Faridabad, comprising of an Eye Surgeon, Orthopedic Surgeon/Physician examined the appellant on 25.06.2017 and found him to be suffering from "B/E Alternate Divergent Squint." Reliance placed by the appellant upon the Out Patient Card (OPD), issued by the PGIMER, Chandigarh, would not advance his case either. Apparently, the OPD Card (ibid), signed by an Eye Surgeon, would, at best, show that appellant was examined in routine. But, not for the purpose of issuance of a medical certificate to join Government service, and in any case, it was not the certificate issued by a Medical Board constituted for this purpose. Be that as it may, pursuan