- (1.) The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2 declining the request made by the petitioner to appoint him on the post of Constable, Indo Tibet Border Police (for brevity 'ITBP'). It is appropriate to mention that 131 posts of Constables by the ITBP were advertised on 16.10.2004. The total number of posts available for Constable (Animal Transport) was 14. The petitioner was at No. 4 in the waiting list on the basis of written and viva voce examination held by the Commanding Officer. Two out of 13 posts remained unfilled and one candidate out of the wait list candidates did not join whereas the other one was declared medically unfit. When the petitioner was subjected to medical examination he was also declared medically unfit and on that score he was not allowed to join. Accordingly another person next available in the wait list namely respondent No. 3 was given the offer of appointment. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 which has been rejected vide order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure P3) by observing as under : "Your complaint has been examined in detail and it has been found that due to the reason of there being some abnormality in your ear, you have been declared medically unfit. This has also been corroborated by the fact that on 1.2.2005 you got medical treatment for your ear from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, which is clear from the OPD slip No. 5215798 dated 1.2.2005 of PGI attached with your application. Therefore, it is not reasonable for you to say that on 25.1.2005 you submitted certificate of your medical fitness to the Medical Officer of the Recruitment Board." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the written statement we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be warranted. In para 2 of the preliminary objections, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was medically examined on 25.1.2005 by Dr. Digvijay Singh, C.M.O. (G), ITBP, Member, Recruitment Board and the Board found him unfit due to suffering from Otomycosis in both ear (Tympanic membrane). The grayish mass was seen in interior portion of both tympanic membrance and having otalgia with otorrhoria in right ear.
(2.) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner got himself medically examined from ENT specialist of General Hospital, Panchkula and the doctors of PGI and they have found that the petitioner does not suffer from any hearing ailment. In that regard, our attention was invited to various averments made in paras 5, 10 and 11 of the writ petition. However, we are unable to accept the submission because once the petitioner has been subjected to medical examination by the Doctors of CMO (SG) ITBP, we do not entertain a doubt about the authenticity of the medical report. There is no mala fide on part of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner. In any case we cannot go into disputed questions of fact and record a finding which medical report has to be preferred over the other. The writ petition is wholly without merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.;