RAJ KUMAR SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this instant writ petition, the petitioner has come before this Court praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.07.2009, whereby he has been found physically unfit and for a further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner with all consequential service benefits including back wages.

(2.) Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment rally which was held from the 14th to 20th June, 2008, and on 6th September, 2008, received a temporary appointment letter issued by the Commandant of Assam Rifles Training Centre and School. He submits that thereafter on medical examination conducted by the Medical Officer of Assam Rifles, the petitioner was however found to be permanently unfit and was issued a certificate stating the same. Being dissatisfied with the said certificate as the petitioner himself was physically fit, learned counsel submits that the petitioner went for a second opinion to the World renowned Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna for re-examination, and as per re-examination, the petitioner was found to be physically fit. The learned counsel then submits that having been found physically fit on the second opinion, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 10th January, 2009 addressed to the respondents for re-consideration of his case, which was acceded to by the respondents by communication dated 24th February, 2009 and petitioner was called for re-examination. The learned counsel submits that however, after the medical review examination, the petitioner was again found to be permanently medically unfit. Learned counsel submits that thereafter on the petitioner's further request for another medical board, he was served with the impugned order dated 22.07.2009. Learned counsel then contends that the respondent authorities had passed the impugned order despite the fact that the petitioner is both mentally and physically fit, and as such by their action, he has been deprived of gainful employment arbitrarily by the respondents. He lastly prays that the impugned order be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be given appointment with all consequential reliefs.

(3.) Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC on behalf of the respondents at the outset has raised strong objections with regard to the long delay in presenting the writ petition. He submits that after the rejection of the petitioner's case in July 2009, he had approached the Court of law only in the year 2017, and has approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition only on 2018. As such, he submits that apart from the facts and circumstances of this case, wherein the petitioner has been given a chance, but still found to be permanently unfit, the instant petition deserves no consideration on the ground of delay alone, and the same should be dismissed.