In Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 2023 -SC- Appointment through ‘Limited Departmental Competitive Examination’ is different from ‘Normal Promotion’, rules Supreme Court
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [28-11-2023]

Read Order: Pavnesh Kumar V. Union of India & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 29, 2023: The Supreme Court has upheld the Border Security Force's (BSF) decision to declare a constable medically unfit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2018-19.

Briefly stated, the appellant, who was working as a constable with the BSF, had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector General Duty (GD) through LDCE. However, he was declared medically unfit for the position, and even a review medical examination by a Board of three doctors upheld this decision. The appellant, dissatisfied with being declared medically unfit for the position, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of the medical result of the review examination and a direction to the respondent BSF to treat him as medically fit. Unfortunately for the appellant, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.

The counsel for the appellant argued that despite initially being found medically fit on 16.12.2019 after a small surgery, the appellant was subsequently declared medically unfit on 23.12.2019. This decision was upheld in a review medical examination on 27.02.2020. It was contended that the BSF lacked the authority to reconsider his fitness status after initially finding him fit.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, held that the appellant's argument, asserting that he was declared medically fit on 16.12.2019 and, therefore, the subsequent declaration of unfitness was not justified, lacked merit. The bench clarified that the appellant was never declared medically fit for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE. While the appellant underwent routine annual medical check-ups as a constable and was declared in medical category SHAPE-I, this was merely an eligibility condition for applying to the Sub-Inspector (GD) post through LDCE.

The bench opined that the appellant did not qualify in the detailed medical examination (stage-V) for the Sub-Inspector (GD) post, which took place on 23.12.2019. Despite the appellant undergoing a minor surgery for the reported medical deficiencies, the subsequent review medical examination by a board of three members upheld the decision of unfitness. The bench emphasized that the appellant's medical examination on 16.12.2019 was part of routine annual check-ups and not a component of the LDCE selection process for the Sub-Inspector (GD) post. Therefore, the appellant did not successfully qualify all five stages of the examination as advertised for the Sub-Inspector (GD) post through LDCE.

Further, the appellant raised the argument, that the appointment through LDCE was akin to a fast-track promotion and not a fresh appointment. Hence, the contention was that the recruitment rules and guidelines applicable to the normal mode of promotion should have been applied, and there should not be different medical standards.

However, the bench observed that the appointment through LDCE was considered an accelerated promotion but concluded that it cannot be equated with the normal mode of promotion. The bench pointed out that the advertisement itself unequivocally stated that applications were invited for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in BSF through LDCE, which implied that it was not a normal promotion but rather a selection to the higher post from among the eligible candidates working on the lower post. Consequently, the bench rejected the submission that the normal rules of promotion or medical examination should have been applied in this case.

Furthermore, the bench observed that the selection process was to be conducted in accordance with the terms specified in the advertisement. The selection scheme outlined in the advertisement explicitly mandated clearing the examination in all five stages, including the detailed medical examination.

In light of the presented facts and circumstances, the Court found no merit in the appeal. The appellant's medical condition had not undergone any review, and the declaration of him being ‘medically unfit’ was not in contradiction to any previous assessments because he had never been declared medically fit during the examination process for the selection to the position of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE.

Thus, the judgment and order of the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Medical Board declaring the appellant as medically unfit, were considered free from any legal or factual errors.