Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy vs Mr. Suresh Kumar Ac (L&C)-Ii on 4 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1738 of 2018
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr. SC-II
-----------
09/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 22.11.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5424 of 2022
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-I
-----------
05/ 04.10.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defects have already
been removed.
Office is directed to verify.
If the defects have already been removed, put up this case under the
heading "For Admission".
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5461 of 2022
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
05/ 04.10.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks' time to
remove the defects as pointed out by the office.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4550 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
03/ 04.10.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks' time to
remove the defects as pointed out by the office.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1551 of 2021
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
05/ 04.10.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks' time to
remove the defects as pointed out by the office.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1478 of 2022
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
For the JPSC : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
For the BIT Sindri : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
-----------
06/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after four weeks to enable the
respondents to file reply to the specific queries made by this Court on
28.08.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4941 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I
-----------
04/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 22.11.2023.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the
next date.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4471 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, AC to SC(L&C)-II
-----------
04/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after three weeks to enable the
respondents to file counter affidavit.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the
next date.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4357 of 2020
WITH
W.P.(S) No.1411 of 2021
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 7 to 16 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 18 to 27 : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankitesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
-----------
09/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up these cases on 31.10.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6063 of 2019
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-CCL : Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocate
-----------
11/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after Durga Puja Holidays to enable
the respondent-CCL to file supplementary counter affidavit.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1389 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Deubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar AC (L&C)-II
-----------
04/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 17.10.2023 along with W.P.(S)
No.1866 of 2022.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Bannerjee, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abishek, AC to AG
For the JPSC : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
-----------
05/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 01.11.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2758 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
-----------
05/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 11.10.2023 to enable the
respondents to file counter affidavit.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1622 of 2018
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
06/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case on 01.11.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 1328 of 2022
----------
Sumit Kumar Dwivedi .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi through its
Principal Secretary.
2. The Staff Selection Commission, through the Chairman, SSC,
Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O+P.S.-New Delhit-3
3. The Director General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), East Block-
07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Recruitment), CRPF, East Block-
07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
5. The Director General (DG), 40th BN, ITBP, Village-Sukurhuttu
and Gagi, Circle/Post-Kanke, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Ranchi.
6. The Deputy Inspector General, Appellate Authority, RME
CT/GD-18 (Board I and Board II) 40th BN ITBP, Village
Sukurhutu and Gagi, Circle/Post-Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S.-Gonda
Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer (SG) Medical Officer (RME APPEAL
PANEL) RME CT/GD-18 (Board I and Board II) 40th BN, ITBP,
Village-Sukurhuttu and Gagi Circle/Post-Kanke, P.O-Kanke, P.S.-
Gonda, Ranchi
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, Sr.CGC
----------
04/ 04.10.2023 Heard the parties.
Prayers made
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the
impugned order dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), passed
by Dy. Inspector General (Appellate Authority), whereby appeal for
Review Medical Examination (RME) preferred by the petitioner against
his medical unfitness declared in the Detailed Medical Examination for the
post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA & SSF and
Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018 has been
rejected.
Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to
conduct Review Medical Examination of the petitioner.
Factual Matrix
3. The Staff Selection Commission has floated an advertisement being
Advt. No. F.No.3/2/2017-P&P-I for appointment to the post of Constable
(GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in
Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018. The petitioner being eligible in all
respects, applied for the same and thereafter, an Admit Card was issued for
appearing in the Computer Based Examination, in which he was declared
successful. Upon being declared successful, the petitioner was called for
Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and to
that effect, an admit card was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner
appeared in the PST/PET examination, where he was declared successful
and qualified. Thereafter, he was called for Detailed Medical Examination
(DME), wherein the petitioner was found medically unfit on the ground; (i)
Diminished vision in both eyes rt 6/12 lt 6/9; (ii) bow legs. Being declared
medically unfit in the DME, the petitioner got himself examined by the
Medical Practitioner of a Govt. Hospital, wherein he was declared
medically fit and a Certificate to that effect was also issued to him.
4. Hence, being aggrieved by the report of Detailed Medical
Examination, the petitioner preferred an appeal for Review Medical
Examination annexing the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by the Govt.
Medical Practitioner. The petitioner was under a legitimate expectation that
his case will be considered for Review Medical Examination as he was
declared medically fit by the Govt. Medical Practitioner. However, to his
utter shock and surprise, the Appellate Authority summarily rejected the
appeal preferred by him.
Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this
Court.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
5. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
strenuously urges that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority
has erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of non-
enclosure of Form-1 as nowhere in the entire recruitment scheme, there
was any requirement for enclosure of Form-1 for filing an appeal against
the Detailed Medical Examination. Learned counsel further argues that the
Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on further
ground that Specialist opinion has not been obtained, which is totally
arbitrary and malafide in nature and against the provision contained in
Clause-9(IV)(E) of Review Medical Examination. Learned counsel further
argues that nowhere in the Review Medical Examination, it is required that
the Medical Officer who issued the Medical Fitness Certificate should be
specialized in the field. Learned counsel further argues that the Appellate
Authority has rejected the Appeal of the petitioner on further ground that
the photograph/ thumb impression of the petitioner was not attested, which
is again arbitrary and malafide as both, i.e. the photograph and the thumb
impression of the petitioner available on the Medical Fitness Certificate
have duly been attested by the concerned Medical Officer, who examined
the petitioner and issued the said Medical Fitness Certificate. Learned
counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in rejecting the
appeal preferred by the petitioner are totally arbitrary, biased and against
the terms of the recruitment scheme as the petitioner was examined and
declared medically fit by the Govt. Medical Practitioner and to that effect,
a Medical Fitness Certificate was also issued by him. Learned counsel
further argues that rejection of the claim of the petitioner is based on
surmises and conjectures inasmuch as candidature of the petitioner was
rejected on technical ground and not on merits which clearly shows the
biasness and pre-conceived notion of the respondents. Learned counsel
further argues that the issue involved in this case has already been decided
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2419 of 2020 and
other analogous cases which has been decided vide order dated 12.01.2021
and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the same and as such,
the petitioner also deserves the same benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places heavy reliance on
the reported judgment of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2393 of 2020 and other
analogous cases which has been affirmed upto the Division Bench and
argues that since the petitioner has qualified in all the events and even
declared successful, his candidature cannot be rejected on technical
ground. Learned counsel further argues and prays that respondents be
directed to constitute a Review Medical Board and thereafter, if the
petitioner is found to be medically fit, his candidature be considered since
he has qualified and declared successful in all the events.
Submissions of learned counsel for the Respondents
7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned senior counsel
for the respondents justifying the impugned order submits that rightly the
case of the petitioner for Review Medical Examination was rejected.
Learned senior counsel further argues that the Appellate Authority
examined RME Appeal in light of recruitment notification and uniform
guidelines issued by MHA vide UO No. A-VI-1/2014/Rectt (SSB) dated
20.05.2015. During the scrutiny of the RME Appeal, the appellate panel
found that "either photograph of candidate not attached or not attested by
Medical Officer in Form-3 (Medical Fitness Certificate) and/ or thumb
impression not attested". Further, for medical unfitness in DME not
attached (Form-01) and moreover, Specialist Opinion not obtained, due to
which panel could not ascertain the infirmities for which he has been
declared unfit and hence, the appeal of the petitioner has summarily been
rejected.
Findings of the Court
8. Having gone through the rival submission of the parties and from
perusal of the documents brought on record and the settled legal
propositions, it can safely be inferred that medical examination is
mandatory requirement for appointment but the same has to be followed
honestly and every policy decision involved with the same should be
transparent so that the candidates are fully satisfied. Even if there is any
iota of differences in the opinion, the same needs to be clarified.
9. In the instant case, there is difference in the medical opinion of
Selection Board and that of other Government Doctor from which medical
report has been obtained by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge vide
his order dated 08.08.2022, passed in W.P.(S). No. 3763 of 2020 has
observed as under:
"14. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the
report of Review Medical Board declaring the petitioners
to be unfit is hereby set aside and quashed. Since the
petitioners have duly qualified in all the examinations
conducted by the respondents, it is only on the ground of
medical unfitness, their cases have been rejected. It is a
fit case, in which, in the interest of justice, the
respondents be directed to constitute another medical
board for re-examination of the petitioners."
The said view of learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 13 of 2023.
10. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions and settled principle of
law, the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ
petition), being devoid of any merit, is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to constitute a Review Medical Board
consisting of one Judicial Officer from the Judgeship of Ranchi and three
Doctors of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. Upon
constitution of the Review Medical Board, a notice to that effect be given
to the petitioner to appear before the Review Medical Board on the
scheduled date and time fixed and thereafter, the Board will take a decision
which will be binding on both the parties. The said report of the Review
Medical Board shall not be a matter of fresh review.
12. Needless to say that if the report of the newly constituted Review
Medical Board is found to be in favour of the petitioner and if he is
otherwise found fit for appointment pursuant to Advt. No. F.No.-3/2/2017-
P&P-1 floated by the Staff Selection Commission, an offer of appointment
be issued to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
report of the Review Medical Board.
13. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4941 of 2015
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II
Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP-II
-----------
08/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after four weeks to enable the
respondents to file counter affidavit, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to
be paid to the petitioner.
Put up this case on 28.11.2023.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4734 of 2023
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
-----------
03/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after six weeks to enable the
respondents to file counter affidavit..
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4438 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sameer Sahay, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
-----------
04/ 04.10.2023 I.A. No.8836 of 2023
Instant interlocutory application has been preferred for
amendment in the para-1 and prayer portion of the main writ application.
The proposed amendment has been made at para-7 in the Interlocutory
Application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if the proposed
amendment is not allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and as
such, for the ends of justice, petitioner may be permitted to carry-out the
proposed amendment in the para-1 and prayer portion and in other relevant
paragraphs of the main writ application.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the
same.
In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and
arguments made in interlocutory application, I.A. No. 8836 of 2023 stands
allowed.
W.P.(S). No. 4438 of 2023
Petitioner is directed to file amended writ petition within a
period of two weeks.
Thereafter, the respondents shall file their reply to the amended
writ petition.
List this case after six weeks.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5438 of 2022
Sardar Amarjeet Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Water Resources Development,
Ranchi
2.The Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department, Project Building, Ranchi
3.Accountant General, (A&E) Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.Chief Engineer, Suwarnrekha Project, Chandil, Complex Adityapur, District-
Saraikela-Kharsawan
5.Superintending Engineer, Suwarnrekha Project, Chandil Complex Adityapur,
District-Saraikela-Kharsawan
6.Executive Engineer, Minor Distributry Division No.3, Mango Jamshedpur,
Dist.-East Singhbhum. ... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Ms. Piyushita Meha Tuddu, AC to AAG-IV
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate
-----------
04/ 04.10.2023 Letter dated 16.08.2023 produced by the learned counsel for the
respondents-State is taken on board.
Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that
grievances of the petitioner has already been redressed.
Under the circumstances, nothing remains to be adjudicated.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4448 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ranchi & Ors. ... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-CCL : Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
-----------
02/ 04.10.2023 As prayed for, put up this case after four weeks to enable the
respondents to file counter affidavit.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/Rohit/-
