Satyadev Kumar Paswan vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 841 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Letters Patent Appeal No.479 of 2019
                                       In
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18222 of 2016
     ======================================================

Satyadev Kumar Paswan S/o Badari Narayan Paswan R/o village - Kharauni, P.O.- Bilauna, P.S.- Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

2. The Director General CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-

B110003

3. The D.I.G. Recruitment CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

4. The DIG, TC and S, BSF, Meru, Distt.- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

5. Commandant, TC ands, BSF, Meru, Distt.- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

6. In-Charge Recruitment Centre R.M.E., S/GD Recruitment-2015, 40th Battalian, ITB police force Sukurhuti Camp, P.o.- Kanke, Distt.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Sweta Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Mohan, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Lokesh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 20-02-2023

Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, the learned

Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma,

the learned Advocate for the Union of India. Patna High Court L.P.A No.479 of 2019 dt.20-02-2023

The appellant has lost an opportunity of being

employed as a General Duty Constable for the reason of

brief illness, which was but medically addressed successfully.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that after clearing other formalities, he was subjected to

medical examination on 01.06.2016 when he was found to

be suffering from Inguinal Hernia on the right side. He was

declared unfit but was given an opportunity to apply for

review medical examination.

Upon filing of the review petition on 16.06.2016,

the appellant was subjected to another medical examination

on 08.09.2016.

Before that, the appellant had successfully been

operated upon but in view of the revised guidelines,

contained in office memorandum dated 20.05.2015,

declaring that an operated case will not be accepted within

six months of surgery, the appellant was declared unfit.

Mr. Yadav has vehemently contended that the date

for review medical examination ought to have been fixed

only after six months and not before that. He therefore Patna High Court L.P.A No.479 of 2019 dt.20-02-2023

submits that the appellant has been put to unnecessary

hardship by fixing a date when six months had not elapsed

after his successful operation to test whether there has been

any recrudescence of the decease.

The afore-noted argument has no substance for the

reason that the date was fixed for review examination

without the respondent authority having been informed that

the appellant had been successfully operated upon. Even

otherwise, such a request does not appear to be tenable for

the reason that the uniform guidelines regarding medical

examination for recruitment of Constable specifically

illustrates the case of Inguinal Hernia. Anyone suffering from

the Inguinal Hernia would be in a position to have such

operation done upon him but even after operation, the

candidature would be acceptable only when the scar of

operation is found to be well healed and the tissues are

supple and non tender. The candidate is also required to

reflect good abdominal muscle and that there should not be

any tendency of recurrence within six months of the

operation.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.479 of 2019 dt.20-02-2023

It appears that to be on the safer side, the

guidelines further provides that an operated case will not be

accepted within six months of surgery.

It is really unfortunate that even when the

appellant has been successfully operated upon for Hernia, he

was declared unfit but for that the respondents cannot be

blamed.

Based on the afore-noted reasons, the claim of the

appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge

vide order dated 28.02.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.18222

of 2016

We do not find any reason to interfere with the

same.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/sunil-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          22.02.2023.
Transmission Date       NA