CHANCHAL KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court contending therein that pursuant to advertisement dated 24.08.2005, he had applied for consideration of his claim in the vacancy of 'Biggular' in CRPF. Petitioner has contended that he passed physical test as well as written examination, then he was called for medical test, which was held on 03.11.2005. Petitioner has contended that he took medical test, wherein he was declared medically unfit on the ground of defective distant vision. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he got himself medically checked up at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, and the report was provided that there was no infirmity in his eyes. Petitioner has contended that he obtained requisite certificate, and requested the authorities to reconsider his claim. Petitioner has contended that thereafter his claim was not accepted on the ground that he had not made application on prescribed proforma. At this juncture, petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court, whereupon this Court passed following order:

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been contended that claim of petitioner for re-medical examination was rightly rejected, however, in compliance of the Court's order dated 02.02.2006, petitioner has been medically re-examined and declared fit. However, specific averment has been made that in the merit list, petitioner cannot be enlisted, as his candidature does not find place as per merit.

(3.) Rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said counter affidavit, and therein, it has been contended that medical examination is conducted only of those candidates, who are found in merit resultantly in physical as well as written examinations. It has been further contended that, as each and every pre-requisite formalities have been fulfilled, relief should be accorded. On the matter being taken up, serious dispute was raised as to whether petitioner's name figured in merit list or not, as such original record has been summoned. The record in question reveals that the last candidate from petitioner's category i.e. general category, who has been selected for the post of 'Biggular' has obtained 61 marks and the last candidate from the general category of 'ex-servicemen' has obtained 60 marks. Entire list of the successful candidates, which has been produced, contains name of 83 incumbents and marks of each and every candidate is higher to the marks obtained by the petitioner. Marks of petitioner have been perused, which after clubbing under each head comes down to 58. Thus, on the basis of record, this position is clear that name of petitioner does not fall in merit to be selected.