VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had appeared in the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in terms of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Rules) under Rule No. 401382. THE petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. He was placed on merit list No. 312 and was entitled to be appointed to the Rajasthan Police Services Category (RPS ). He was medically examined but was informed vide communication dated 2. 12. 1998 that he was un-fit for the post of R. P. S. due to sub-standard of Chest measurement. Copy of the communication is attached as Annexure-1. He made representation vide Annexure-2 and challenged the medical report of the Me-dical Board. He also submitted number of medical certificates issued by the Government doctors vide Annexures 3,4 and 5. He states that he is medically fit under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules. THE petitioner was again got medically examined vide Annexure-6. It is stated that he was orally informed that he is temporarily unfit. THE petitioner, instead of in R. P. S. cadre was ultimately acc-ommodated in the Rajasthan Accounts Service vide Annexure-7. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been properly medically examined so far as measurement of chest is concerned. THE petitioner submits vehemently that he fulfills the minimum requirement of chest measurement and he cannot be ignored for appointment in RPS.
(2.) THIS court on the submission of the petitioner had directed the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College to constitute a Board for medical examination of the petitio-ner and to submit its report vide its order dated 28. 1. 1999. A Board was constituted by the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College on the direction of this court and the Board has submitted its report which has been placed on record of the writ petition. The Board has reported that the Chest measurement of the petitioner is 79 cm. before expansion and 84 cm. after expansion. According to the parties the minimum requi-rement for Chest expansion is fulfilled as per the latest report of the Medical Board as constituted under the orders of this court. Counsel for the respondent states that no opportunity could have been given to the petitioner for re-examination and, therefore, the latest report of Medical Board cannot be taken into account. It is further submitted that it is known factor that by doing extensive exercise and with good diet, the chest measurement can be improved in a given case and, therefore, the present report should not be accepted for the reason that the petitioner might have improved the chest measurement after taking exercise and it is the initial medical report which should be taken into consideration. The respondent on the direction of this court had also placed photo-stat copies of the earlier medical reports dated 24. 12. 1998 and 25. 7. 1998. It is true that vide medical report dated 25. 7. 1998 the petitioner's chest has been found to be not according to the standard. On the representation of the petitioner, the respondent itself had got the petitioner re-examined and a report was submitted that the petitioner is temporarily unfit on account of sub-standard chest measurement and was advised another review of medical after three weeks. It is also mentioned in the medical report itself that in case of the candidates who are declared to be temporarily unfit, the period for re-examination should not exceed six months at the maximum and on re-examination after specified period these candidates should not be declared temporarily un-fit again and a final deci-sion in this regard be made. In the medical reports this clause has been mentioned as under:- " In the case of candidates who are to be declared' `temporarily unfit' the period specified for re-examination should not ordinarily exceed six months at the maximum. On re-examination after the specified period these candidates should not be declared "temporarily Unfit" for a further period but a final decision in regard to their fitness for appointment for otherwise should be given. " On the medical report dated 24. 12. 1998 the Board has reported as under:- " Temporarily unfit on account of sub-standard chest -----------advised review after 3 weeks after chest exercise. " Despite the above said report dated 24. 12. 1998, the petitioner still felt that his chest had not been properly measured and approached this court. As stated the court had directed the Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner. The contention of the respondent to the effect that the medical examina-tion as got conducted by this court cannot be accepted on the ground that once the medical report has been received, there should not be any further re-examination. It is not denied that the copy of report of the Medical Board is not supplied to the candidate, but still on coming to know that he had been checked out because of so called sub-standard of chest measurement, the petitioner challenged the same. The Medical Board had advised that he should be re-examined after three weeks after exercise. If as per the advise of the Medical Board, which Board had examined the petitioner on the direction of the respondents, the petitioner had been advised for re-examination after three weeks after chest exercise, it cannot be said that on re-examination by the SMS Medical College vide its report if the petitioner is found to be fit, such report could be ignored.
(3.) EVEN a suggestion was made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can be examined in the court under the supervision of the court itself by any eminent Government doctors or Board of Doctors and such finding should be binding on the parties. The counsel for the respondent did not agrees to such suggestion. However, for the reason that on re-examination, on the review of the medical as even advised by the earlier Medical Board, the petitioner has been found to be fit and in such situation, there is no alternative but to accept the report of the Medical Board appointed by this court. The Medical Board consisted of Professor, Associate Professor of the SMS Medical College and there is no reason as to why the latest report be ignored. Counsel for the respondent relies on a judgment reported in 1993 (8) SLR 450 (1 ). This judgment is distinguishable and has no bearing on the facts of the pre-sent case. ;