2025:JHHC:24814 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1018 of 2017 --- Rahul Kumar Singh, son of Sanjay Kumar Singh, resident of Village Harpur, P.O. Chandi, P.S. Charpokhari, District Bhojpur (Arra), Bihar .....Petitioner -Versus- 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, having its office at Central Secretariat, North Block, P.O and P.S. Central Secretariat, District New Delhi 2. Central Reserve Police Force, through its Director General, having its office at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, District New Delhi 3. Review Medical Board, 40th Batallion, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Sükurhuttu Camp, P.O. and P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi 4. Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at Block No.12, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, District New Delhi 5. The Regional Director (Central Region), Staff Selection Commission, having its office at 21-23, Lowther Road, P.O. and P.S. Lowther Road, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. ..... Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Senior panel Counsel Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, CGC -- 10/04.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: For quashing the report of the review medical board dated 26.08.2016 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been held to be unfit and upon quashing the said report dated 26.08.2016, to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment. 2025:JHHC:24814 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2015, the Respondent-Staff Selection Commission published an Advertisement for recruitment of 62390 posts of Constables (GD) in CRPF, BSF, SSB, CISF etc. The Petitioner being aspirant for appointment on the post of Constable, for which the Advertisement was published, he applied for the same and he successfully qualified in the physical as well as in the written examination; however, he was declared unfit in medical examination for the reason “perforation of tympanic membrane of left ear.” Thereafter, the Petitioner got his ear operated by medical expert and filed an appeal for review medical board. His appeal was duly considered and the review medical board was constituted; however, by the review medical board, his case was dismissed only on the ground that “Myringoplasty less than 120 days”. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand, as per Rules of the Respondents, a candidate has to file an appeal within a period of 15 days and therefore, before filing an appeal for reconstitution of medical board he got his ear operated; however the reason given by the review medical board that his candidature was rejected on the ground that “Myringoplasty less than 120 days”, does not appear to be reasonable. Had there been a case, the petitioner would have filed the review after more than statutory period of appeal, then his appeal would have been dismissed as time barred. In the instant case, the petitioner immediately after getting the medical report got his ear operated and thereafter filed an appeal which was considered and a review medical board was constituted, but unfortunately the review 2025:JHHC:24814 3 medical board was constituted within a period of 120 days from the date of operation. 5. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this technical ground given in the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside; inasmuch as, after the petitioner was found unfit on detection of left ear; he immediately underwent medical surgery and he was also examined by medical board on 14.05.2016 and was operated on 25.05.2016 and his case has been rejected only on the ground that on the date of examination by the review medical board, the period between the examination of medical board and the surgery was less than 120 days. As a matter of fact, it was not in the hand of the petitioner to fix the date of review medical board; simultaneously, it was also not in the hand of the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the period of 15 days for constitution of review medical board. 6. Accordingly, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ application is allowed. The concerned respondent is directed to constitute a review medical board, who shall again examine the petitioner and if the petitioner is found fit now; subject to the availability of any seat as of now, his case can be considered sympathetically for appointment 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk AFR