Patna High Court
Chunchun Kumar vs The Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19084 of 2017
======================================================
Chunchun Kumar Son of Upendra Prasad Singh, R/o Mahesh Prasad Singh
(M.P.S.) Science College, Muzaffarpur Police Station-Town, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, New Delhi, Group Centre, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, New Delhi, Group Centre, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 31-10-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment on the post of Constable (Ministerial) arising
out of advertisement of 2015-16.
3. The facts in brief are that the Central Reserves
Police Force (C.R.P.F) having come out with an online
advertisement in the year 2016 for recruitment to fill-up the
current and backlog vacancies for the post of Head Constable
(Ministerial) in C.R.P.F for the year 2015-16, the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
2/8
applied online and cleared the physical test held on 8.7.2016
as also the written test conducted on 23.10.2016. Thereafter,
the petitioner was also declared successful in the skill test held
on 3.12.2016. As directed, the petitioner appeared for the
medical test on 23.1.2017 and was declared unfit in the
medical test on the ground of distance Visual Acuity ('VA' in
short) having been found to be 6/12 and 6/18.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an
appeal and also got himself medically examined in the
Government Sadar Hospital at Muzaffarpur on 7.2.2017
where his vision was found to be 6/6 and 6/6.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied
before the Appellate Medical Board and appeared for review
medical examination on 19.4.2017, however on the result
being published, the name of the petitioner did no figure
among the selected candidates. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner again got himself
examined in the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology at the
Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (I.G.I.M.S) at
Sheikhpura in Patna wherein also his VA was found to be 6/6
and 6/6.
6. In view of the above facts, it is submitted by
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
3/8
learned counsel for the petitioner that his VA being normal,
the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter or in
the alternative, the petitioner be examined by an Appellate
Medical Board for review medical examination, if necessary.
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgment in the case of Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Ors.
vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; (2015) 10 SCC 400.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4
submits that the petitioner being an aspirant for the post of
Head Constable (Ministerial) in the C.R.P.F for which the
respondents had come out with an advertisement for filling up
the vacancies, the process of recruitment was conducted from
April, 2016 to September, 2017 at 37 C.R.P.F recruitment
centers all over the country. The petitioner having been found
medically unfit in the detailed medical examination held on
23.1.2017
due to eye deformity, he was not selected. Pursuant
to an appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was re-
examined by a Board of Medical Officers at the Composite
Hospital, C.R.P.F, New Delhi on 19.4.2017 wherein once
again his distance VA was found to be 6/12 in the right eye
and 6/18 in the left eye and he was thus declared unfit.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
being physically unfit, the petitioner is not eligible for
selection for the post he applied for. There is no merit in the
instant application and the same be dismissed. Reliance is
placed on the judgment dated 21.12.2020 of the Delhi High
Court in the case of KM. Priyanka vs. Union of India &
Ors. [W.P.(C) 10783/2020].
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
9. The facts in brief are that the respondents having
proceeded with an online recruitment drive to fill-up current
and backlog vacancies for the post of Head Constable
(Ministerial) in C.R.P.F for the year 2015-16, pursuant to an
advertisement having been published, the petitioner applied
for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) and cleared the
physical test, the written test as also the skill test.
10. On appearing for the medical test, the petitioner
was found unfit on account of his low distance VA being 6/12
and 6/18. It may be noted here that the Central Reserves
Police Force, Assistant Sub-Inspector (Steno) and Head
Constable (Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2000 made as per
powers conferred by section 18 of the C.R.P.F Act, 1949
provides for the method of recruitment, age limit,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
qualification as also other matters relating to appointment
including the medical fitness required. The Schedule of the
said Rules provides for the medical standard of the eye sight
which states that the minimum distant vision should be 6/6 in
one eye and 6/9 in other eye without correction ie without
wearing of glasses or lenses.
11. It is the case of the petitioner that the Medical
Board had wrongly examined the low distance VA in his eye
as 6/12 and 6/18 for which the petitioner filed an appeal. To
substantiate his submission with respect to the incorrect
finding by the medical team of the respondent C.R.P.F,
learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the eye
test reports conducted at the Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur and
at the I.G.I.M.S, Sheikhpura, Patna.
12. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was
medically examined by the Medical Board of the C.R.P.F on
24.1.2017 and his low distance VA was found to be 6/12 and
6/18. This was below the required minimum standard of eye
sight as provided under the C.R.P.F Recruitment Rules of the
year 2012. It further transpires that from the candidates'
medical examination report brought on record as Annexure-A
to the counter affidavit that the examination of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
on 23.1.2017 finding him to be unfit was conducted by a
Board of as many as five members. Further on the
review/appeal having been filed by the petitioner, the review
medical examination was conducted by a Board of three
doctors on 21.4.2017 where they once again declared the
petitioner to be unfit having found that the petitioner had
undergone refractive surgery in both the eyes. Further
pursuant to the directions of this Court, a review medical
examination of the petitioner was once again conducted on
16.4.2019 by a team of three doctors at the Composite
Hospital, C.R.P.F, Muzaffarpur wherein again the petitioner
was found unfit on account of having undergone visual
correction by lasik surgery in both eyes.
13. So far as the judgment relied on by learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rajendra Shankar
Shukla (supra) and more particularly paragraph no.47 thereof
is concerned, the same has no application in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
14. On the other hand, it would be relevant to quote
the relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of KM.
Priyanka (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the
respondents which is as follows :-
"8. We have on several occasions observed that
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
the standard of physical fitness for the Armed
Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent
than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti
Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del
951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of
India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan
Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine
Del 924, held that once no mala fides are
attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are
well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces
in the terrain in which the recruited personnel
are required to work, have formed an opinion
that a candidate is not medically fit for
recruitment, opinion of private or other
government doctors to the contrary cannot be
accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are
required to work for the Forces and not for the
private doctors or the government hospitals and
which medical professionals are unaware of the
demands of the duties in the Forces. In fact, the
case of Priti Yadav (supra) also related to
'cubital valgus'. It is also to be noted that the
specialists that the petitioner had consulted had
also found that the petitioner suffered from
'cubital valgus' and therefore, the findings by the
Medical Boards were not wrong.
9. What may seem as a minor difference in the
assessment of the Civil doctors in comparison to
the assessment of the Medical Boards, may blow
up into a serious health condition during the
course of service with the CAPFs. It is not in the
interest of either the Police Forces or candidates
that their medical problems are brushed aside
only on the plea that it was a question of
employment. The general health of candidates
would be permanently impacted due to the stress,
both physical and mental, on account of these
medical shortcomings. On the other hand, the
government would be saddled with a Police
Force where such personnel would seek soft
postings because of their health conditions and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19084 of 2017 dt.31-10-2025
low medical category. This would lead to
dissatisfaction amongst the personnel in the
Forces as some people, who ought not to have
been taken into the Forces, would always benefit,
whereas the others would be mostly faced with
hard postings and duties.
10. The petitioner has availed of all opportunities
to get a second opinion during the Appeal/Review
Medical Board and there is no purpose left in
getting a further medical examination
conducted."
15. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner having been found medically unfit for
appointment, having been given the opportunity for a review
medical examination and once again having been found unfit
on account of having undergone corrective surgery for the
medical issues in both the eyes, the Court finds that the
petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief in the
instant application.
16. There is no merit in the instant application and
the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 25.09.2025
Uploading Date 31.10.2025
Transmission Date
