SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. - (1.)IN this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.1.2006, by which they have been terminated from service. Against the said order, the petitioners had preferred appeal before the appellate authority, but the same has also been rejected by order dated 12.5.2006.
(2.)THE brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioners, is that the petitioners had been appointed as constables under the Central Reserved Police Force in terms of an advertisement after following due procedures on 27.5.2003 and 31.3.2003 respectively. After being appointed, the petitioners had started discharging their duties. Pursuant to the reports submitted by the C.B.I with respect to commission of irregularities in the said appointment, the petitioners along with other 64 persons had been directed to undergo remedial examination, which was held on 21.9.2005. On medical reexamination, the petitioner No.1 was not found medically fit on the ground of (a) left side DNS (b) left side hydrocele (c) B/L vercose vein with hypo piguntetion of B/L feet. On medical reexamination, the petitioner No.2 was not found medically fit on the ground of (a) knock knee (b) deformed Arch of feet, B/L i.e. partial tallpes eqhino venus deformity (club feet) (c) Tania verniclolur warte on back of neck. Thereafter, the petitioners had been terminated from service by the impugned order in exercise of power conferred under sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had been appointed after medical examination, they had been permitted to discharge their duties, but they had been directed to undergo remedial examination on a complain made by the C.B.I. Once the petitioners had been medically examined and they had been directed to discharge their duties as constables, there was no occasion to againdirect them to undergo remedial examination. The petitioners had been terminated from service without following due procedure of law in exercise of power conferred under sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Since the petitioners had been appointed against the permanent sanctioned posts, they were entitled to be proceed departmentally under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, but without following due procedure of law, they have been terminated without considering the fact that sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 will not be applicable because the posts on which the petitioners had been appointed were permanent in nature. As per the definition given in the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the petitioners are not coming under the purview of the said rules. It has been submitted that 66 enrolled persons including the petitioners had been remedically examined, but most of them are in service, though they have been found medically unfit. It has been further submitted that other 64 enrolled persons had also been terminated on the ground of medical unfitness, but they have been taken back in service. The respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and they have not reinstated the petitioners in service, which is discriminatory. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in Anil Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors , 2011 4 JL JR 215 and i n Debabrata Shit Vs. Union of India through the Inspector General of Police, B/S, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna & Ors, 2012 2 JCR 466.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners had been appointed on the post of constable under the C.R.P.F. A complain was made before the C.B.I that some enrolled persons have been appointed, who are not medically fit. On the basis of the said complain, the respondents had directed 66 enrolled persons including the petitioners to appear for remedial examination. In the remedial examination, it was found that the enrolled persons are medically unfit, as such the respondents have rightly terminated them from service. So far as the fact as to whether Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 will be applicable to the petitioners, it has been argued that the provision of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 will be applicableon the ground that the respondents have already made reference of the same in the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioners wherein it has been stated in Column 'Ga' that after joining in the C.R.P.F, the C.R.P.F Rules, 1955 will be applicable. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards Rule 16 of the C.R.P.F Rules, 1955, which is being quoted herein below.

"16. Period of Service (a) All members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. During this period of engagement, they shall be liable to discharge at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi -permanency under the provision of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Those not declared quasi -permanent under the said rules shall be continued as temporary Government employees unless they claim discharge as per schedule to the act. Those who are temporary shall be liable to discharge on one month's notice and those who are quasipermanent shall be liable to discharge on three months' notice in accordance with the said rules, as amended from time to time."