Supreme Court Upholds BSF’s Decision on Medical Unfitness in LDCE: Pavnesh Kumar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 1025

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1025

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a routine medical check-up that declares an employee fit be considered valid for a subsequent selection process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Border Security Force (BSF) constable who was declared medically unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The court clarified that a routine medical check-up for an existing post is distinct from the detailed medical examination required for a new selection process.

This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The appellant, Pavnesh Kumar, was a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF). He applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2018-19. He underwent a detailed medical examination on 23.12.2019, where he was declared medically unfit due to several health issues, including Right Sided Varicocele, Varicose Vein left calf, and Tachycardia. A review medical examination on 27.02.2020, by a board of three doctors, confirmed this decision, even after the appellant had undergone a surgery on 28.12.2019.

The appellant challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the medical result and be declared medically fit. The High Court dismissed his petition on 24.09.2020, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the BSF to declare him medically unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD). The High Court, vide its order dated 24.09.2020, dismissed the writ petition. The High Court upheld the decision of the Medical Board, stating that the appellant was correctly declared medically unfit. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE specified several eligibility conditions, including:

• Upper age limit of 32 years.
• Completion of 4 years of service, including basic training.
• Graduation with an unblemished service record.
• Fulfillment of physical standards.
• Qualification in SHAPE-I medical category.

The selection process consisted of five stages:

1. Verification of service records.
2. Written examination (OMR based).
3. Physical measurements (PST).
4. Physical efficiency test (PET).
5. Detailed medical examination.

The advertisement stipulated that candidates must be declared medically fit in the fifth stage, which was a detailed medical examination, in addition to fulfilling the eligibility condition of being in the SHAPE-I medical category.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that he was declared medically fit on 16.12.2019, and therefore, the BSF could not subsequently declare him unfit on 23.12.2019.
• He contended that his appointment through LDCE should be treated as a fast-track promotion, not a fresh appointment. Therefore, the medical standards applicable to normal promotions should have been applied.

The appellant contended that since he was declared fit in the routine medical checkup on 16.12.2019, the subsequent medical examination on 23.12.2019 declaring him unfit was not valid. He argued that the LDCE was a form of accelerated promotion and not a fresh appointment, so the medical standards for regular promotions should apply.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the medical examination on 16.12.2019 was a routine annual check-up for his existing post as a constable and not for the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector.
• The respondent highlighted that the advertisement clearly stated that candidates must clear all five stages of the selection process, including the detailed medical examination, to be considered fit for the post of Sub-Inspector.
• The respondent stated that the LDCE is a selection process, not a normal promotion, and thus, different medical standards apply.

The respondent countered that the medical check-up on 16.12.2019 was a routine annual check-up for his position as a constable and was not related to the selection process for the Sub-Inspector post. They emphasized that the advertisement required candidates to clear all five stages, including a detailed medical examination. They argued that the LDCE was a selection process, not a regular promotion, and therefore, specific medical standards applied.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant, having been declared medically fit in a routine annual medical check-up, could be declared unfit in a subsequent detailed medical examination for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE.
2. Whether the appointment through LDCE is akin to a normal promotion, thus entitling the appellant to be assessed by the same medical standards as applicable to normal promotions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court did not cite any specific case laws or books. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

The court considered the terms and conditions of the advertisement issued by the BSF for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE. The court emphasized the requirement of clearing all five stages of the selection process, including the detailed medical examination, as a condition for selection.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE was the primary authority. The court relied on the terms and conditions of the advertisement, emphasizing the requirement of clearing all five stages, including the detailed medical examination. The court stated that the medical category SHAPE-I was a condition precedent for applying to the post, but it was not sufficient to be declared medically fit for the post.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear distinction between a routine medical check-up for an existing post and a detailed medical examination for a new selection process. The court emphasized that the advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE clearly stipulated that candidates must successfully complete all five stages of the selection process, including the detailed medical examination, to be considered medically fit. The court also highlighted that the LDCE is a selection process and not a regular promotion, thus justifying the application of different medical standards.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The medical examination conducted on 16.12.2019 was a routine annual check-up for the appellant’s post as a constable and not for the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD).
• The detailed medical examination on 23.12.2019 was specifically for the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) through LDCE.
• The advertisement for the post clearly specified that candidates must clear all five stages of the selection process, including the detailed medical examination.
• The LDCE is a selection process and not a normal promotion, and therefore, different medical standards apply.

The court rejected the argument that the LDCE should be treated as a fast-track promotion, stating that the advertisement clearly indicated that it was a selection process. The court also emphasized that the appellant was never declared medically fit in the process of selection for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD).

The Court stated, “The appellant was never declared medically fit in the process of selection for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD).”

The court further noted, “The very fact that the applications were invited for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) connotes that it was not a normal promotion rather selection to the higher post from amongst the eligible candidates working on the lower post.”

The court clarified, “This was independent and in addition of the eligibility condition that a candidate must possess the medical category SHAPE -I while working on the lower post.”

Key Takeaways

✓ A routine medical check-up for an existing post does not validate medical fitness for a new selection process.

✓ Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE) are selection processes, not normal promotions.

✓ Candidates must fulfill all requirements of the selection process, including detailed medical examinations, to be considered fit for a post.

The judgment clarifies that medical standards for promotions through LDCE may differ from those for regular promotions. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement for selection to a post.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a routine medical check-up for an existing post is not sufficient to validate medical fitness for a new selection process through LDCE. The judgment clarifies that LDCE is a selection process, not a normal promotion, and therefore, different medical standards may apply. This reinforces the principle that selection processes must be followed strictly, and candidates must meet all specified requirements, including detailed medical examinations, to be considered fit for a post. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but clarifies the distinction between routine medical check-ups and detailed medical examinations in the context of LDCE.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the BSF and the Delhi High Court. The court clarified that a routine medical check-up for an existing post is not equivalent to a detailed medical examination required for a new selection process through LDCE. The court emphasized that the LDCE is a selection process and not a normal promotion, thereby justifying the application of different medical standards. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement for selection to a post.