Supreme Court Clarifies Re-Medical Examination Timelines for Civil Services: Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy (2022) INSC 538

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 June 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 538
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath

Can a candidate, declared temporarily unfit for civil services due to a high Body Mass Index (BMI), seek a re-medical examination after the stipulated six-month period? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the interpretation of relevant rules concerning re-medical examinations for civil service aspirants. This judgment examines the interplay between strict timelines and discretionary powers in the context of medical fitness for government jobs. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The respondent, K. Rajashekhara Reddy, participated in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2014, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). After clearing the preliminary and main examinations, he attended an interview on 2nd June 2015. Subsequently, on 3rd June 2015, he underwent a medical examination at B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, New Delhi. The medical report, uploaded on the department’s website on 17th June 2015, declared him ‘temporarily unfit’ due to a BMI of 32, exceeding the permissible limit of 30.

The final results of the CSE 2014 were announced on 4th July 2015, but the respondent’s name was not included in the main list. However, his name appeared at Sl. No. 16 in the consolidated reserve list published on 19th January 2016. Following this, on 9th March 2016, candidates from the reserve list were considered for allotment to various Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ services. On 10th March 2016, the respondent submitted a representation requesting a re-medical examination, claiming he was now medically fit. This request was made beyond the six-month period from the date of his initial medical report, leading to the dispute.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the respondent’s application, citing that he had not applied for a re-medical examination within six months of the initial medical report, as required by Rule 7(a)(vi) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014. The Tribunal noted that the respondent’s BMI was over 30, rendering him temporarily unfit. The respondent then challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The High Court, while acknowledging the six-month rule, interpreted the word ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014, to allow for discretion in special cases. The High Court considered the fact that the respondent’s name appeared in the reserve list on 19th January 2016 and that he applied for a re-medical examination on 10th March 2016, within six months of the reserve list publication. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the appellant to conduct a re-medical examination.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework revolves around the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2014, specifically Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III, which deals with re-medical examinations for candidates declared temporarily unfit. The rule states:

“In case of candidate who is to be declared “Temporary 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 or otherwise should be given.”

This provision stipulates that candidates declared ‘temporarily unfit’ should undergo re-examination within six months, with a final decision on their fitness. The key point of contention is the interpretation of the word ‘ordinarily’ in conjunction with ‘maximum’ in the rule.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The appellant argued that the medical report of the respondent was uploaded on 17th June 2015, and the representation for re-medical examination was made on 10th March 2016, which was beyond the six-month limit.
• The appellant contended that the word ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014, should be read with ‘maximum’ and should be applied only in exceptional cases, such as pregnant women unable to complete medical examinations within six months.
• The appellant submitted that allowing discretion in this case would set a precedent for abuse.

Respondent’s Arguments (K. Rajashekhara Reddy):

• The respondent argued that this was his last attempt at the civil service examination.
• He contended that prior to 2014, medical reports were sent to candidates individually, and the practice of uploading reports on the website was new in 2014.
• The respondent stated that his name was not in the main list published on 4th July 2015, and he could only take action after his name appeared in the consolidated reserve list on 19th January 2016.
• He argued that he made a representation on 10th March 2016, immediately after his name appeared in the consolidated reserve list, along with a medical fitness certificate.
• The respondent also highlighted that the Tribunal had initially directed the authorities to conduct a re-medical examination.
• He submitted that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion, considering his case as a special one.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to conduct the re-medical examination of the respondent-applicant after the stipulated period of six months as provided under Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

• Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2014: This rule specifies the time limit for re-medical examinations of candidates declared temporarily unfit.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014: The Court interpreted this rule strictly, emphasizing that the six-month period is an outer limit and the word “ordinarily” must be read in conjunction with “maximum”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014, which mandates that re-medical examinations should ordinarily be completed within six months, with this period being the maximum. Although the court acknowledged the respondent’s unique circumstances, it emphasized the importance of adhering to the stipulated timelines to maintain the integrity of the examination process. The court also took note of the fact that the medical report was uploaded on the website of the Department which was considered to be the notice to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the legal interpretation of the rules (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the interpretation of the word ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014. The court emphasized that the word ‘ordinarily’ has to be read conjointly with the word ‘maximum’. The Court observed that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the word ‘ordinarily’ in isolation, without considering the word ‘maximum’. The Court also noted that the medical report was uploaded on the website of the Department which was considered to be the notice to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process.

The Court also considered the fact that the respondent’s name was not in the main list published on 4th July 2015, and he could only take action after his name appeared in the consolidated reserve list on 19th January 2016. However, the court held that this was not a valid justification for the delay in applying for a re-medical examination.

The Court, however, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. The Court noted that this was the respondent’s fifth and last attempt, and that he had been found medically fit in the re-medical examination conducted after the orders of the Court. The Court also noted that before the year 2014, medical reports were always made available to the individual candidate. The Court, therefore, directed the appellant to consider the respondent for appointment, with all notional benefits, but without actual salary for the period he did not work.

“In case of candidate who is to be declared “Temporary Unfit”, the period specified for re-examination should not ordinarily exceed six months at the maximum.”

“The word ‘ordinarily’ in isolation as interpreted by the High Court without taking recourse to the word ‘maximum’ as referred, is not sustainable in law.”

“In the given circumstances, this Court, while exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice, consider it appropriate to direct that based on the re-medical fitness report, the appellant may consider the case of the respondent-applicant for appointment as per his placement in the consolidated reserve list originally published of CSE, 2014 on 19th January, 2016, subject to police verification, with all notional benefits including seniority, pay scale and other consequential benefits but not the actual salary for the period for which he has not worked, within a period of four weeks from today.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates declared temporarily unfit for civil services must apply for re-medical examinations within six months of the initial medical report being uploaded on the department’s website.
• The term ‘ordinarily’ in the rule does not allow for broad discretion; it must be read with the word ‘maximum,’ indicating the six-month period is an outer limit.
• The date of publication of the reserve list is not relevant for calculating the six-month period for re-medical examination requests.
• The Supreme Court may use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in exceptional cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to consider the respondent for appointment based on the re-medical fitness report, as per his placement in the consolidated reserve list of CSE 2014, with all notional benefits, including seniority and pay scale, but without actual salary for the period he did not work. This was to be done within four weeks, subject to police verification.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the period specified for re-examination should not ordinarily exceed six months at the maximum, and the word ‘ordinarily’ should be read with the word ‘maximum’. This clarifies that the six-month period is an outer limit and not a flexible timeline that can be extended based on individual circumstances, except in very exceptional cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the existing rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. While acknowledging the respondent’s unique circumstances, the Court emphasized the need to adhere to the stipulated timelines for re-medical examinations. The Court, however, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice by directing the authorities to consider the respondent for appointment, with notional benefits. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014, emphasizing that the six-month period for re-medical examinations is an outer limit and should be strictly adhered to.