Petitioner seeks appointment as Constable, based on Ext P1 letter. His father died on 07.09.1986, while serving as a Constable in CRPF.
2. Petitioner, applied for appointment under the 'dying-in- harness Scheme'. By Ext.P1 order, he was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Constable(GD), CRPF on certain conditions. One such condition was regarding medical fitness. Petitioner was subjected to medical examination. By Ext.P5 order dated 08.11.2014, the petitioner was informed that he was declared unfit due to 'RT Pleural thickning/effusion' and hence he was found unfit for enlistment to the post of Constable in CRPF on compassionate grounds. It was further stated that he can submit an appeal for a second medical opinion within a period of one month to the DIG, CRPF, Pallipuram, supported with 'Medical Fitness Certificate' issued by the District Medical Officer.
3. In this circumstance, based on the above letter, petitioner approached the respondents producing Ext.P3 medical fitness certificate issued by Associate Professor of Radiology, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and another certificate by Ext.P7 from Nehru Hospital Medical College, Gorakhpur. Thereafter, by Ext.P8, the respondents referred the petitioner to the Professor of Radiology, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for opinion on his X-Ray Chest.
4. By Ext.P9 letter dated 25.01.2005, Dr. Sara Ammu Chacko, Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Medical College, Trivandurm addressed the Medical Officer-in-charge, GC Hospital, Pallipuram, Trivandrum furnishing her opinion as 'Minimal Pleural thickening (Right)'. On receipt of the same, the Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF informed the petitioner as per Ext.P10 dated 02.03.2005 that during the course of review medical examination conducted in GC hospital on 21.01.2005, he was declared unfit due to 'RT Pleural thickning/effusion' and hence he was unfit for employment to the post of Constable in CRPF on compassionate grounds. It was further stated that his case for compassionate appointment was treated as closed and further correspondence will not be entertained.
5. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of constable under them under the 'dying-in-harness scheme or in the alternative, direct the respondents to re-examine him by a medical board. He also challenges the order Ext.P10, by which he was informed that he was medically unfit and his claim for compassionate appointment was closed.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the contentions in the writ petition and contending that the petitioner who was found unfit in the medical examination cannot be appointed as Constable in CRPF.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further medical examination was conducted after appeal was filed by him in terms of Ext.P5 letter. According to him, he is medically fit for appointment as Constable. He has also produced certain certificates issued by medical officers and cardiologists to show that he does not have any problems as alleged and he is medically fit for any appointment. From the orders impugned especially from Exts.P8 and P9, it is seen that the respondents have only forwarded the X-Ray in respect of the petitioner for opinion, based on which opinion is tendered. According to the petitioner, he was not subjected to any further medical examination and the opinion furnished on the basis of an X-Ray without any discussion cannot be the basis for rejection for his claim for appointment. It is found that petitioner was not subjected to a proper medical examination , subsequent to the filing of the appeal, as a result of which he is losing an employment under the Govt of India.
8. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was considered eligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and an order of appointment was issued to him, and it is seen that he was not subjected to a further medical examination properly, I think it will not be proper to defeat his legitimate opportunity for a posting as Constable based on Ext P1, for want of a proper assessment bya duly constituted medical board. I, therefore, quash Ext P10 and direct the respondents to subject the petitioner for medical examination by a duly constituted medical board for assessing his fitness for appointment as Constable in CRPFwithin a period of two months. The case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of Ext.P1 order shall be reconsidered on the basis of the opinion to be submitted by the medical board. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. In case petitioner is again found unfit for appointment as Constable. I direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment in any other suitable post under the dying in harness scheme, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the claim of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the sole ground of delay, since his case was already considered and appointment was already offered.
SD/-
P.V. ASHA, JV JUDGE