Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sunil Kumar v. I.G. Of Police, C.R.P.F., Lucknow & Others - WRIT - A No. 26333 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 5671 (11 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 9.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26333 of 2002.

Sunil Kumar                                        ...           Petitioner.


Inspector General of Police & Ors.     ...           Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

The petitioner appeared at a recruitment rally held in July/August 2001 at 104 RAF Bn. Aligarh, U.P.   He was found fit and was enrolled as Constable, General Duty with effect from 6.1.2001 and was sent for basic training to RTC-III, CRPF, Pallipuram (Kerala).  While he was undergoing basic training , the Senior Medical Officer of RTC-III declared him unfit due to 'Myopia' along with 10 other recruits for one or the other reasons.  The Medical Examination Report dated 1.1.2002 of Senior Medical Officer declared the petitioner unfit to undergo training.  The petitioner was asked to return back to his group centre where the Competent Authority decided to examine all such recruits by the Review Medical Board vide letter of the Board of Director/Director CRPF dated 28.3.2002.

The Review Medical Board, CRPF, Lucknow presided by Dr. Vijay Bahadur, CMO, GC, KKT, MBBS, Dip(Optho) with two other expert members, examined all eleven recruits on 3.4.2002 and found them unfit for further service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Review Medical Board and  the consequence of termination of his service under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 along with Schedule-F as well as Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Learned counsel or the petitioner states that one Manoj Kumar Singh  was also declared medically unfit His matter was lateron considered by the CRPF and that he is still serving.  He has also relied upon the case of  Brijesh Singh in writ petition No. 25663 of 2002 in which this Court had directed a fresh Medical Board to consider whether he is fit to continue in service.  He further submits


that the petitioner was found to be medically fit at the time of initial recruitment and has completed 44 weeks of training and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The report of the Senior Medical Officer, RTC-III shows that the petitioner was suffering from 'Myopia D.V. 6/36 in his both eyes'. The Medical Board confirmed these findings.

It is surprising as to how the petitioner with such low vision could have sailed through the medical examination at the time of his recruitment.  A person with such low vision, even with correction  cannot successfully perform duties  as Constable General Duty.

I find that where a person has been enrolled as a member of force and has not been given a permanent status, could  be terminated from service after giving notice under Central Civil (Temporary  Service) Rules, 1965.  There are no pleadings or proof of  any malafide nor there anything to show that there was any motive to single out the petitioner and to terminate his services.

Though the petitioner has tried to dispute the findings of the Medical Board, by producing certificate from Civil Hospital, these certificates, on close examination, bear over-writings and cannot be believed, for contradicting medical examination made by the Review Medical Board.   There is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be subjected to further review medical board, for finding out whether there was any mistake committed at the time of recruitment.

The fact that any other person got recruited without disclosing that earlier he was not selected on account of  medical unfitness, cannot be a ground to allow second review medical board.  The petitioner must establish his own case.  The example given by the petitioner with regard to a person  whose case is still under examination cannot be  a foundation for alleging malafides.

The writ petition is dismissed.   No costs.

Dt. 11.11.2005.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.