[2025:RJ-JP:46414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5914/2003 Vijay Singh S/o Shri Ramanand, Village And Post- Tasingh, Tehsil- Behror, District Alwar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Director General, C.R.P.F., Head Quarter, New Delhi. 2. The Commandant, C.R.P.F. Group-II, Ajmer 3. The Add. D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Group II, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Adhiraj Singh for Mr. Devendra Raghava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/11/2025 1. The matter comes up on the misc. application (IA No.1/2025) for early listing of the case. 2. Considering the issue raised in the present writ petition as regards declaring the petitioner unfit for recruitment to the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmchari), the Court deems just and proper to hear the matter today itself. Hence, the application for early listing is allowed. 3. Heard on merits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the advertisement of the year 2003, the petitioner has appeared in the recruitment process for the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmchari). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner cleared all the physical test i.e. race, jump, high jump [2025:RJ-JP:46414] (2 of 4) [CW-5914/2003] etc. and he was found fit from all the respects physical as well as medical test. On being selected, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 29.05.2003 and was directed to appear before the concerned authority alongwith certain documents for joining his services. He further submits that the petitioner has appeared before the concerned authority and was inducted into training course which commenced from 02.06.2003 where he continued his training upto 24.06.2003 but unfortunately the respondents by an oral termination, terminated the services of the petitioner stating that he is unfit for the service. 5. Learned counsel further submits that termination of the petitioner after being duly selected and that too without issuing any notice to the petitioner is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the termination is without any basis as the petitioner has already qualified the medical test as well as physical test. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after giving offer of appointment to the petitioner, he was medically examined on 14.06.2003 and was declared unfit. In view of the medical examination report, the services of the petitioner were terminated. He further submits that the medical examination report has been placed as Annexure-R/1 alongwith reply which shows that the petitioner has been declared unfit for the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmachari). 7. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record including the medical examination report submitted by the respondent as Annexure-R/1. [2025:RJ-JP:46414] (3 of 4) [CW-5914/2003] 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued offer of appointment on 29.05.2003 after being duly selected for the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmachari). 9. The respondents are said to have terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that during training period, the petitioner was medically examined and was said to have been found unfit. The medical examination report has been enclosed as Annexure-R/1. The remarks at the end of medical examination report are quoted as under:- “In view of previous exposure to TB and chances of reinfection/reactivation of disease the candidate is declared UNFIT though there is no active Pulm. Tuberculosis.” 10. The medical examination report is definite that at the time of medical examination the petitioner was not suffering from active Tuberculosis. He has been declared unfit merely on account of there being chances of reinfection/reactivation of the disease. The chances of infection/activation of the disease can be there with any person who is well and healthy. It does not mean that one can be declared unfit on the basis of chances of reinfection/reactivation of the Tuberculosis disease. The ground of declaring the petitioner unfit is not acceptable until and unless the Medical Examination Authority is of definite opinion that the petitioner is suffering from any active Tuberculosis disease. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after being selected for the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmachari) was issued offer of appointment with a direction to join the duties on 29.05.20223. The petitioner had joined the services and was inducted into training course and thereafter, the respondents have declared him [2025:RJ-JP:46414] (4 of 4) [CW-5914/2003] unfit and terminated the services even without issuing any show- cause notice or opportunity of hearing. 12. Any order adverse to the petitioner after he being duly selected if issued without allowing him any opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice, is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and such order or action on the part of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the Court is of firm opinion that termination of the petitioner on the basis of medical examination report (Annexure-R/1) deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The oral termination of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Class-4th (Sahayak Karmachari) with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled for notional benefits of salary uptill the date of passing of this order. However, he would be entitled to actual salary from the date of this order. 15. Since the main petition is allowed, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /12