R VENKATESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.26894 of 2004, which has been filed challenging the order impugned passed by the first respondent as well as the consequential order passed by the second respondent.

(2.) The appellant herein was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 09.06.1993. Thereafter, being graduate, he applied for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police. He was subjected to Physical Efficiency Test, in which he participated and after getting qualified, he was asked to attend the written test and viva-voce test. The appellant became successful in both the written test and viva-voce test. At this stage, he was once again asked to appear for physical examination before the Medical Board. However, the appellant was not issued with any communication. Therefore, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing application in O.A.No.5906 of 1997 and during pendency of the same, he was once again called for the second medical examination, as in the earlier medical examination, he was found "not fit". It is seen from the records that the original application in O.A.No.5906 of 1997 filed by the appellant was mistakenly dismissed as it was clubbed with a batch of other cases, wherein the issues were different. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.5768 of 1999 and a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the common order passed in the batch of applications in so far as the appellant is concerned and remitted the case back to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. Pursuant to the closure of the Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition has been taken up by the learned single Judge.

(3.) It is to be seen that during the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, the appellant was once again called upon to appear for the second medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, the Government General Hospital, Chennai, on 11.10.2001 and the Board declared that the appellant has got a minimal and mild bilateral flexible flat foot, which may not interfere with his routine duties. However, inspite of the said report, respondents 1 and 2 rejected the case of the appellant.