2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 893
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shyam Kishor Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
CWJC 409 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.409 of 2021 ======================================================
Shyam Kishor Kumar, Son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village Panhas, Post Suhird Nagar, Police Station Nagar Thana, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Govind Apartment, Jeevan Vihar Colony Telebandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
4. The Chairman Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi.
... ... Respondents ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate For the UoI : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.
Mrs. Kanak Verma, C.G.C.
For the S.S.C. : Mr. Radhika Raman, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-01-2025 Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned Senior C.G.C. with Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned C.G.C., for the Union of India and Mr. Radhika Raman, learned Advocate for the Staff Selection Commission.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders as contained in Letters No. आर०दो-01/2019-सथा-6 dated 07.07.2020 as well as dated 20.10.2020, whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit and accordingly his candidature has been rejected. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a direction to restore his candidature and allow him to join the Force on the post of Constable (GD).
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, in the year
2015, the Staff Selection Commission vide Advertisement dated 24.01.2015, invited applications for selection against vacancy for General Duty (Constable) under different Forces. The petitioner having found himself eligible submitted his application. Resultantly, he appeared for test conducted and qualified the physical test held in the month of May 2015.The petitioner further appeared in the written examination on 04.10.2015 and secured 153rd rank in the merit list. In terms of the position in the merit list, the petitioner has been allocated Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘the CRPF’). Upon final publication of the result, when the petitioner has not been called upon to join or any appointment letter has been issued, the matter was enquired and the petitioner came to learn that his candidature has been kept in the category of suspect list due to suspicion raised over his signature/handwriting/left thumb impression taken at the time of medical examination, did not match with the signature/handwriting/left thumb impression already available with the dossier of the recruitment records.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent no.3. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted all the required papers and completed the dossier as directed by the concerned respondent.
4. The respondent authorities, in order to get it verified, sent the matter to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal. Finally, the candidature of the petitioner was found genuine vide verification report dated 03.10.2019. Subsequent to which, offer of appointment for the post of Constable (GD) was issued vide letter dated 15.02.2020. The petitioner has further been directed to appear before the Medical Board for physical test. In the medical test, the petitioner was found “overweight with Tachy Cardia” and, as such, he was declared unfit. The case of the petitioner was referred to Joint Hospital Central Reserve Police Force, Bilaspur. The Medical Board has further found the petitioner overweight and accordingly the impugned letter dated 07.07.2020 has been issued, whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed