VINAY KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the petitioner seeking to produce additional documents marked as Annexures P8 to P10. Perusal of the application reveals that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner, are copies of the Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for the recruitment in the GREF Centre & Records and the certificate issued by the Military Hospital at Dehradun dated 8th June, 2011 and a write up on the description and definition of Hydrocelectomy from Surgery Encyclopedia. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are relevant for the determination of the real controversies between the parties and there may not be any doubt about the genuineness of the said documents. The notice of the writ petition has not yet been issued to the respondents. Consequently, the application is allowed and the documents, annexed as Annexure P8 to P10, are taken on record. THIS is an application by the petitioner for filing an additional affidavit. The petitioner has disclosed that the petitioner had undergone a hydrocele operation in the year 2009, about 1? years before the date of his medical examination on 18th May, 2011. THIS fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in his writ petition. The petitioner by way of the present application seeks to file an additional affidavit disclosing about the hydrocele operation performed on him in the year 2009. The notice of the writ petition has not yet been issued to the respondents. For the reasons stated in the application it is allowed and the additional affidavit of the petitioner dated 29th March, 2012 is taken on record. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of Mason in the Border Road Organization and he has also sought the quashing of orders dated 18th May, 2011 and order dated May, 2011 declaring the petitioner medically unfit for the said post. The petitioner has further prayed that a medical board be constituted comprising of specialist doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the medical examination of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that the respondents had issued an advertisement vide ADVT No.01/2010 seeking appointments to the post of Mason in the category of OBC. THE petitioner had applied for the post of Mason in the OBC category and according to him, he had successfully qualified the trade test and the interview.

(3.) THE allegation of the petitioner is that he appeared for the medical test at Recruitment Zone, Rishikesh on 18th May, 2011, however, the medical officer without examining the petitioner, wrongly and illegally issued a declaration that the petitioner is temporarily medically unfit on account of following reason:- "Post operated scrotal swelling"