Chain Pal Singh v. Union of India

1. The present petition has^Jbeen filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a wit of certioiiari, for quashingthe orders dated 10.05.2014 and 22.08.2014 passed by the respondents/CRPF, striking him off from the strength of the Cbnipositfe HMpilal, CRPF, Hyderabad. The petitioner also seeks reinstatement to the post of Constable/Masalchi with all consequential benefits.

2. We may note that on 24.02.2016, learned counsel for the respondents hg.d produced the relevant records in the court pertaining to the petitioner that included a form that was required to be filled by a candidate. Clause 5 of the form required a candidate to clarify as to whether he had ever been operated upon and if so, state the nature and date of operation. The said column was filled up by the petitioner by replying in negative. It is noteworthy that the form's format was in both, English and Hindi language. ! W.P.(C) 6468/2015 i Page 1 of[3] 2017:DHC:8650-DB r Therefore, the petitioner could not have taken a plea that he had not understood the queries raised in the said form, before recording his answer.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents had contended that despite having the knowledge of the fact that he had undergone a surgery, the petitioner had filled up and signed the said form and submitted it to the respondents. Later on, in the course of his examination at the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad on 22.3.2013, it was revealed that he had alinear scar mark on the abdomen, about 10-12 cms. and one horizontal scar mark about 8-10 cms on right side of"the chest.

4. Learned couns^lSt^tfejrespondents had stated that the petitioner had been diagnosed as,a case of '.'Decompensgted Cirrhosis Liver with Portal Hypertension with Mgh Gmde Esophageal Varices with Budd Chiari Syndrome with OccludediMesoatrial Shunt and advised for Herpetologist consultation and foi* possible-liye,r transplantation.

5. It was in the aifdreSHid: background and keeping in mind his medical condition that.the respondents had issued the impugned order dated 22.8.2014 stating inter'alia that the petitioner was medically unfit to undergo the basic training.

6. When confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment to obtain necessary instructions from 'her client. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner had indeed undergone asurgery, which fact had not been revealed in the form submitted by him at the time of going through the selection process.

7. In view ofthe aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any ground for interfering with the impugned orders dated 10.05.2014 and W.P.(C) 6468/2015 \ Page2of[3] V 22.08.2014, passed by the respondents which are upheld. The present petition is dismissed as meritless, along with pending applications. No orders as to costs.