Heard Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Advocate for

respondents.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated

17.08.2021

passed

by

the

Karnataka

State

3

Administrative Tribunal in Application No.20420/2021.

The case of the petitioner is that he applied

for the post of Civil Police Constable pursuant to the

notification issued by second respondent. He was

provisionally selected and directed to appear before

the Medical Board for medical examination. According

to the Medical Board, the petitioner was found to be

having hearing impairment and therefore he was not

selected.

Aggrieved

by

his

non-selection,

he

approached

the

Tribunal

which

dismissed

his

application.

4.

It is the argument of Sri Mahesh Patil that

the petitioner does not have any kind of hearing

impairment. Even before he was examined by the

Medical Board, he got his ears tested at Shri B.M. Patil

Medical

College

Hospital

and

Research

Center,

Vijayapur on 05.12.2020 and the opinion of the

4

specialists was that he had no hearing impairment.

Then again on 05.02.2021 he got his ears tested at

District Hospital, Vijayapura. The petitioner also got

his ears tested by Dr. Ratkal Kedarnath ENT Care

center, Kalaburagi on 23.02.2021. The said doctor

conducted audiogram and opined that he had no

hearing impairment. Therefore it is the argument of

Sri Mahesh Patil that the report of the Medical Board

constituted in connection with recruitment process

was not correct. In these circumstances, the Tribunal

ought to have directed for referring the petitioner to

appear before another Medical Board. Without giving

such

a

direction,

the

Tribunal

dismissed

the

application, and this resulted in great injustice being

caused to the petitioner and therefore this court has

to give suitable directions for constitution of Medical

Board so that the petitioner can appear before the

said Board for getting his ears tested.

5

5.

Learned Government Advocate submits

that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The

rules of recruitment do not provide for re-examination

of a candidate after the Medical Board gives its report.

In this view, this writ petition is devoid of merits.

Therefore it is to be dismissed.

6.

In reply, Sri Mahesh Patil refers to order

passed by the coordinate bench of this court in

W.P.No.201223/2021 and submits that in a similar

situation, re-examination of a candidate by the

Medical Board was permitted.

7.

After hearing learned counsel for the

petitioner and the Government Advocate, at the out

set we may state that we do not find any infirmity in

the impugned order. The rules of recruitment clearly

state that after publication of provisional select list,

the candidate included in the provisional selection

6

list must appear before the Medical Board for a

comprehensive medical examination. Further, it is

also made clear that only such of the candidates who

are found to be physically fit in the medical

examination shall be considered for appointment and

the opinion of the Medical Board is final. In this view,

we may state that the Medical Board before whom the

petitioner appeared for medical examination found

that the petitioner had hearing impairment and for

that reason he was not selected for the post of Civil

Police Constable. We do not find any infirmity in the

procedure followed by the selection committee.

8.

In the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by

the

coordinate

Bench

of

this

court

in

W.P.No.201223/2021, there is no finding as such that

a candidate who was not selected on medical grounds

can be permitted to appear before another Medical

Board for reexamination. What we find from this

7

order is that the Government Advocate filed a memo

stating that the order of the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal has been complied with regard

to one more medical test. The memo was placed on

record and writ petition was dismissed as having

become infructuous. In this view, we do not see any

principle of law