Case Background
The case arose from a recruitment process for the post of Constable/Fire (Male) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the Eastern Sector.
An Employment Notice bearing No. 32023/Constable/Fire Recruitment–2012 (Eastern Sector) was issued on the basis of Force Headquarters letter No. E‑32023(1)/13/2012/Rectt/Constable Fire/1340 dated 06.06.2012. The closing date for receipt of applications for the Eastern Zone was 18.07.2012. The CISF Eastern Sector Headquarters, Patna, was responsible for receiving applications from candidates of Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha.
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable/Fire. His application was found in order and he was allotted Roll No. 050118300. He cleared the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test and then qualified in the written examination. His name appeared in the merit list, so he was called for medical examination at CISF 2nd Reserve Battalion, Ranchi, on 07.05.2013.
At this medical examination he was declared medically unfit on the ground of “Single testis on right side of scrotum and undescended testis in left inguinal canal.” A Memorandum of Unfitness dated 07.05.2013, in Form CISF(Constable)/1, was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, CISF RTC Behror (SG). This memorandum gave him 15 days’ time to file an appeal for Review Medical Examination, failing which his candidature would be cancelled.
The petitioner then approached a private surgeon, underwent corrective surgery and obtained a medical fitness certificate. He also corresponded with the authorities about rectifying defects in that certificate. Finally, a rectified certificate dated 04.07.2013 was sent to the respondents.
Meanwhile, the Appellate Authority accepted his appeal and issued a call‑up letter dated 24.07.2013 directing him to appear for Review Medical Examination on 07.08.2013 at CISF 2nd Reserve Battalion, Ranchi, at 0700 hours. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not report on that date and his absence was recorded. Eventually, no appointment letter was issued to him, leading to the present writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21793 of 2013. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the CISF authorities to issue him an offer of appointment for the post of Constable/Fire under the 2012 Eastern Sector recruitment.
He also requested that the authorities be directed to consider his candidature “sympathetically and according to merit”, arguing that his future life and career depended on this job. He further asked for any other appropriate relief.
In his writ petition, the petitioner stated that he had been selected on merit after clearing the physical test and written examination. He accepted that he was initially declared medically unfit on 07.05.2013 but said this defect was temporary and curable.
He explained that, after receiving the Memorandum of Unfitness, he was given 15 days to submit a medical fitness certificate as per Form CISF(Constable)/3, so that it would reach the addressee on or before 22.05.2013. Within this time, he consulted Dr. B. Kumar, Consultant Surgeon, Raj Hospital, Ranchi, and underwent operative correction surgery on 10.05.2013. In this operation, the left testis was brought down to the root of the scrotum. A medical fitness certificate dated 11.05.2013 was issued in his favour.
The petitioner then preferred an appeal on 16.05.2013 before the Inspector General, CISF (respondent no. 2), enclosing the medical fitness certificate dated 11.05.2013. Later, the Assistant Commandant (respondent no. 3) issued a letter dated 28.06.2013 pointing out discrepancies in the certificate and requiring rectification in Form CISF(Constable)/3, Column 2, Form No. 1, showing all reasons for earlier medical unfitness.
In compliance, the petitioner again consulted the same surgeon and obtained a rectified medical fitness certificate dated 04.07.2013, which addressed the objections. He forwarded this rectified certificate to respondent no. 2 on 08.07.2013 by speed post.
The petitioner complained that despite this, no decision was communicated and no appointment letter was issued. He asserted that he was medically fit, had cleared all selection stages on merit and was ready to serve as Constable/Fire in CISF. His counsel argued that the authorities’ inaction was arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, violated principles of natural justice and had caused irreparable loss to his livelihood and career.
The Union of India and CISF authorities filed a detailed counter affidavit denying these allegations. They narrated the full recruitment process and confirmed that the petitioner had indeed cleared the PST/PET and written test, and had been called for medical examination on 07.05.2013.
They also confirmed that he was declared medically unfit for the stated reason and given a Memorandum of Unfitness dated 07.05.2013 with liberty to appeal within 15 days. They accepted that he filed an appeal with a medical certificate, which was considered by the Appellate Authority.
Importantly, the respondents stated that the appeal was accepted. On this basis, a call‑up letter dated 24.07.2013 was issued, directing the petitioner to appear for Review Medical Examination on 07.08.2013 at CISF 2nd Reserve Battalion, Ranchi.
According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner did not appear for the Review Medical Examination. He was marked absent and this was recorded in his Individual Record Sheet by the supervising officer, Shri B.K. Chauhan, Commandant, CISF Unit, KhSTPP Kahalgaon. The respondents stressed that medical fitness is an essential eligibility condition and a pre‑condition under the recruitment notification. Since he did not appear before the Review Medical Board, his medical fitness could not be assessed.
They further pointed out that though his initial private medical certificate was defective, they gave him an opportunity to rectify it through the letter dated 28.06.2013. Despite due intimation, he failed to attend the Review Medical Examination. They maintained that they had acted in full accordance with recruitment rules and notification and that, because he did not qualify in the medical stage, no appointment letter could be issued.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court examined the undisputed core facts. The Court noted that the petitioner was declared medically unfit on 07.05.2013 for the specific condition noted by the CISF medical officer. A Memorandum of Unfitness was issued, informing him about his right to appeal within 15 days for Review Medical Examination, failing which his candidature could be cancelled.
The Court also recorded that the petitioner had indeed availed this remedy and filed an appeal with a medical fitness certificate dated 04.07.2013. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and issued a call‑up letter dated 24.07.2013 asking him to appear for Review Medical Examination on 07.08.2013 at 0700 hours at CISF 2nd Reserve Battalion, Ranchi.
Crucially, the Court highlighted that the counter affidavit clearly stated that the petitioner failed to report for Review Medical Examination and was marked absent, with an endorsement in his Individual Record Sheet. The judgment specifically notes that this assertion of the respondents “has not been effectively controverted” by the petitioner.
On this basis, the Court held that, since the petitioner did not appear before the Review Medical Board, his medical fitness could not be assessed. Consequently, the essential eligibility condition for appointment remained unfulfilled. As per the recruitment notification, medical fitness is a mandatory prerequisite for appointment to the post of Constable/Fire. The Court further observed that a medical certificate issued by a private doctor cannot be considered as per the recruitment rules.
The Court found that the petitioner had been given “adequate and reasonable opportunity at every stage of the recruitment process.” The respondents had followed the recruitment rules, procedures and notification. No arbitrariness, illegality or violation of natural justice was found.
After considering all materials and submissions, the Patna High Court concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit. The prayer to command the authorities to issue an appointment letter or to consider his candidature further was rejected. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for candidates appearing in recruitment processes, especially for uniformed forces like CISF where physical and medical standards are strict.
The Patna High Court makes it clear that even if a candidate has cleared written and physical tests and feels he is medically fit, he must strictly comply with all stages of the official recruitment process. Private medical certificates, even after surgery or treatment, have no value unless the candidate appears before the official Review Medical Board and is found fit there.
The case shows that courts will usually not interfere in recruitment if authorities follow their own rules, give proper opportunities and there is no proven arbitrariness. Non‑attendance at an officially scheduled medical review can alone defeat a claim for appointment, regardless of the candidate’s personal belief about his fitness.
For job seekers, the judgment underlines the importance of carefully reading every notice, memorandum, and call‑up letter, and ensuring physical presence whenever the recruiting authority fixes a date, especially for medical examinations.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner, a candidate for CISF Constable/Fire (Male), was entitled to an appointment order after initially being declared medically unfit but later obtaining a private medical fitness certificate and filing an appeal.
Answer: No. The Court held that since he failed to appear before the officially constituted Review Medical Board on the scheduled date, his medical fitness could not be assessed as per recruitment rules, leaving an essential eligibility condition unfulfilled. Therefore, he could not claim appointment. - Issue: Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or in violation of natural justice by not issuing an appointment letter despite the petitioner’s private medical certificate and rectified documents.
Answer: No. The Court found that the respondents acted strictly in accordance with the recruitment notification and rules, gave adequate opportunities including appeal and Review Medical Examination, and therefore there was no arbitrariness or breach of natural justice.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions or precedents are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21793 of 2013
Case Title: Shashi Bhushan Singh v. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 268
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Judgment: 31.01.2026
Advocates: Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner; M/s R.K. Sharma, CGC; Lokesh; A.K. Pandey, SCGC for the respondents.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) seeking mandamus regarding appointment in CISF recruitment.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
