Gauhati High Court
No. Ex-Tc No. 61611 Rect/Gd Satish vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 15 December, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010152932019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4700/2019
NO. EX-TC NO. 61611 RECT/GD SATISH
S/O- OM PRAKASH, R/O- VILL- PUNCH GAON, P.O- PUNCH GAON, P.S-
MANISAR, DIST- GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN- 134102
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ASSAM RIFLES
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA- 793011
3:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT
STAFF OFFICER-1(RECRUITMENT)
DIRECTORATE GENERAL
ASSAM RIFLES
SHILLONG-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 15-12-2023
Heard Mr. R Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S S Roy learned counsel for the respondents.
Page No.# 2/4
The petitioner was provisionally selected for enrolment as
trainee recruit (General Duty) on 23.05.2001 subject found fit in the
medical examination. The petitioner was found medically unfit due to
"Fine Tremor of both hands" and was discharged from service.
The case of the petitioner is that the respondents had not
issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner prior to his discharge
from service nor was given any reasonable opportunity to defend his
case before his discharge. Thereafter the petitioner had preferred a
writ petition before this court being WP(C) No.1956/2010.
This Court under its order dated 11.09.2012 directed the
respondents to constitute a fresh medical examination within a
specified time frame by a board having expertise in relevant field of
deformity as alleged by the respondents. Accordingly, on 12.10.2012
the respondent authorities directed the petitioner to appear before the
Board for medical examination.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
examined without having any specialist in the field and his case was
again rejected on the same ground.
In a similar circumstance like that of the petitioner, some
other persons who were also discharged of being medically unfit
approached this Court by filing writ petitions and their cases were
rejected by a learned Single Bench of this Court. Thereafter those
persons approached the division bench by preferring appeals and the
hon'ble division bench allowed the writ appeals interfering with the
decision of the learned single judge and directed to issue offer of
appointment to those appellants subject to completion of basic
Page No.# 3/4
training course. Thereafter some other persons on the basis of the
determination made by the hon'ble Division Bench approached this
Court for similar relief as has been granted by the division bench,
however, such writ petitions were dismissed by the learned singe
bench and thereafter those petitioners preferred a review petition
being Review Petition (C) No.111/2018. In the review petition the
earlier order was recalled and the writ petition was allowed in terms
of the division bench judgment. Accordingly, the present petitioner
now approach this Court for a similar relief.
The claim of the petitioner is that the respondents without
having proper material before them concluded that the petitioner is
unfit with a predetermined mind to make the petitioner unfit. In
support of such contention Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the
petitioner refers to the affidavit filed by the Union of India to project
that the petitioner was declared unfit on 29.10.2012 vide (Annexure -
3 to the writ petition) whereas, the recommendation of the Review
Medical Board clearly reflects that the review was done on
31.10.2012. Accordingly, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the order of
declaring the petitioner unfit cannot be based on the Review Medical
Board which was purportedly done on 31.10.2012.
This Court has also found from the (Annexure - 3)
appended to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent that
the Appeal Medical Board, Assam Rifles declared the petitioner unfit in
the said form on 29.10.2012 whereas, the medical board on the basis
of which purportedly such declaration was arrived, was made on
31.10.2012.
Page No.# 4/4
That being the position, this court is of the view that the
petitioner is entitled for a proper review by a Medical Board.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the
respondents to constitute a fresh Appeal Medical Board/Review
Medical Board within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order for the purpose of examining
the medical fitness of the petitioner. It is further directed that if the
petitioner is found to be fit in the Appeal/Review Medical examination,
then the respondents would have to consider the candidature of the
petitioner for his continuation in service in Assam Rifles by recalling
the discharge certificate dated 09.10.2001.
The Appeal/Review Medical Board shall examine the case of
the petitioner in accordance with the Detailed Medical Examination
Guidelines which was prevailing during the recruitment year, 2001.
It would be open to the respondents to determine whether
the petitioner was within the permissible age on the date when he
had applied for joining and/or enrolled in the Assam Rifles.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated
above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
