IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23215 of 2012

======================================================

Pramod Kumar Pandey son of Shri Raj Nath Pandey, a resident of Roop

Rahimpur, P.S. Madhaura, District-Saran.

.... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Union of India through the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF Jhaphan,

Muzaffarpur (Bihar).

2. Dy. Commandant, 133 BN, CRPF, Member-1, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

3. Medical Officer of the Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

.... .... Respondents

======================================================

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Asstt. Solicitor General.

======================================================

PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN

ORDER

2

18-12-2012

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

directing the respondents-concerned to appoint the petitioner on

the post of constable (G.D.) in Central Reserve Police Force

(C.R.P.F.) quashing the order passed by the respondent

concerned in May, 2011 (Annexure-IV).

3. The claim of the petitioner is that in response to the

advertisement published in the office of the respondents, the

petitioner applied for the post of constable (G.D.) in C.R.P.F.,

whereafter physical verification was done in which he

succeeded and in the written test he passed and he was included

in the merit list at serial no.234, but thereafter when final

medical test was taken by the doctor of the respondents on

Patna High Court CWJC No.23215 of 2012 (2) dt.18-12-2012

- 2 -

11.01.2011 (Annexure-2) he was declared medically unfit due

to colour blindness.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

thereafter he got himself examined by an eye expert at Sadar

Hospital, Chapra who gave him certificate dated 19.01.2011

(Annexure-3) who found that the earlier opinion of the doctor

of the respondents was error of judgment and the petitioner was

medically fit for the post concerned. Thereafter, in view of the

direction given by the authorities on 11.01.2011 (Annexure-2),

petitioner sent his memo of appeal along with the certificate of

the eye specialist dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure-3) before the

Review Medical Board on 19.01.2011 itself by speed post along

with the said report of the eye specialist and the required postal

order. Thereafter no information was given to the petitioner and

all of a sudden petitioner learnt that in May, 2011 (Annexure-

4), the Review Medical Board has dismissed the petitioner’s

appeal only on the ground of late receipt of the memorandum of

appeal beyond the period of 15 days from 11.01.2011.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he is a

poor person and had sent the memorandum of appeal by speed

post on 19.01.2011 which was much prior to the completion of

15 days i.e. 26.01.2011 and hence the delay in the receipt of the

memorandum of appeal by the Review Medical Board was not

Patna High Court CWJC No.23215 of 2012 (2) dt.18-12-2012

- 3 -

due to any of the fault of the petitioner, rather it was due to the

delay caused by the postal department. Hence, he submits that

the order of the Review Medical Board of May, 2011

(Annexure-4) is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and is fit to be

quashed.

6. From the arguments of learned counsel for both the

parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that it is

not in dispute that Medical Officer of the Recruitment Board

had given his opinion on 11.01.2011 finding the petitioner not

fit for appointment in the force due to colour blindness. It was

clearly mentioned in the said report dated 11.01.2011 that if the

petitioner wanted to challenge the said report he should file a

memo of appeal before the Review Medical Board within 15

days thereafter.

7. Although lea