[2026:RJ-JP:5779] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10082/2020 Mohit Nirmal S/o Shri Ramesh Nirmal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 180, Majari Khurd, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi 2. Directorate General, Crpf (Recruitment) Branch), East Block-07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.k. Puram, New Delhi- 110066 3. Assistant Commandant, Representative Of Inspector General, Frontier Headquarter, Bsf, Jodhpur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Nirmal (Petitioner in Person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar (Head Constable) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition is preferred with following prayer:- (i) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 16.03.2020 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner for review medical examination and in case the petitioner found fit in the review medical examination he may be given appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance of notice (Annexure-1) with all consequential benefits; [2026:RJ-JP:5779] (2 of 4) [CW-10082/2020] 2. The petitioner is present in person and he argued the matter as the counsel is abstaining from work. 3. Mr. Surendra Kumar, Head Constable (Force No.051250029) is present for respondents and he controverted the contentions made by the petitioner in person. 4. The controversy in the instant case is limited to a question whether the petitioner has enclosed the demand draft of ₹25/- with his appeal or not for seeking review medical. 5. The material on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was found unfit due to hyper tension as his BP was 170/110 mmHg, whereas tachycardia (Pulse-110 per minute). The petitioner was provided an opportunity to file an appeal to have review medical and also required to enclosed a demand draft of ₹25/-. 6. The rejection letter dated 16.03.2020, which is reproduced as under (Annexure-6), clearly indicate that the appeal has been duly received by the respondents but only on ground that a demand draft of ₹25/- was not enclosed has rejected the appeal. “Øekad% LFkk@HkrhZ@vkj{kd¼th0Mh0½@20@1336&37 izsf"kr] ROLL NO- 2405109447 MOHIT NIRMAL, S/O RAMESH NIRMAL 180 MAJARI KHURD, MAJARI KALAN, NEEMRANA DISTT- ALWAR, RAJASTHAN PIN-301703 fo"k;% RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF CONSTABLE (GD) IN CAPFS, NIA, SSF & AR 2018: REJECTION OF REVIEW MEDICAL APPEAL THEREOF [2026:RJ-JP:5779] (3 of 4) [CW-10082/2020] vkids vkosnu i= tksfd iqu% fpfdRlk tkWp djkus ds lUnHkZ esaA 2- mijksDr fo"k; esa vkidks voxr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki mijksDr HkrhZZ ds esfMdy gsrq fnukad 13@01@2020 dks lgk;d izf'k{k.k dsUnz tks/kiqj esa mifLFkr gq, ftlesa vki esfMdy cksMZ }kjk v;ksX; (Unfit) ?kksf"kr fd, x, ,oa bl lEcU/k esa vkidks fyf[kr esa lqfpr fd;k x;k fd vxj vki mijksDr esfMdy ifj{kk dh tkWp&ifj.kke ls lUrq"V ugha gS rks vki 15 fnu ds vUnj ,d 25 :i;s dk fMek.M Mªk¶V cuok dj vkSj lkFk esa Medical Practitioner ls fQVuSl lfVZfQdsV ysdj ,d vihy [G, BSF, Ftr HQ BSF Rajasthan dks lEcksf/kr dj ldrs gSA 3- fu;ekuqlkj vkids }kjk vihy nk;j dh xbZ tksfd bl eq[;ky; dks izkIr gqbZ gSA vkidh vihy izkIr gksus ds mijkUr xfBr Nkuchu cksMZ }kjk tkWp dh xbZ ftlesa ik;k x;k fd vkius vihy ds lkFk 25 :i;s dk fMek.M Mªk¶V ugha yxk;k gS tksfd yxkuk vfuok;Z Fkk ftl dkj.k vkidh vihy dks xfBr cksMZ }kjk vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k gSA 4- vr% bl lEcU/k esa vkidks voxr djk;k tkrk gS fd vki Hkfo"; esa mijksDr HkrhZ ds lUnHkZ esa bl eq[;ky; ls dksbZ i=kpkj u djs] ;fn vkids }kjk dksbZ i=kpkj fd;k tkrk gS rks mls laKku esa ugha fy;k tk;sxkA lgk0 dekUMsaV ¼vuq0½ d`rs egkfujh{kd QzfUV;j eq[;ky; lhlqcy tks/kiqj] jktLFkku ” 7. A perusal of reply and Annexure R/1 indicate that the petitioner has deposited ₹25/- on 22.01.2020 for issuance of draft and same is also reflected from Annexure-7 as ₹50/- was debited from the saving bank account of the petitioner. 8. Having considered the fact that the petitioner has prepared a demand draft and as per petitioner, he sent the demand draft with his appeal but it has not been received or acknowledged by the respondents, is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the petitioner has complied the condition for consideration of his appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:5779] (4 of 4) [CW-10082/2020] 9. Having taken note of the entirety of facts and circumstances, to balance the equities and also considering the bona fide of the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed and letter dated 16.03.2020 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to decide the appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order presuming deposition of demand draft of ₹25/- with the appeal. 10. Needless to say that the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision of appeal to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 11. Writ Petition and Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /05