Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh while setting aside the order of the Tribunal directing the present appellant to conduct re-medical examination of the respondent.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the Civil Services Examination, 2014 was notified by the Union Public Service Commission holding recruitment to 24 participating services. The respondent had also participated in the selection process. The respondent attended the medical examination and the medical report of the respondent was uploaded on the website of the Department on 17th June 2015. However, in the said medical report, it was opined that the required Body Mass Index should be not more than 30 but since the BMI of the respondent was 32, he was declared ‘temporarily unfit’. The result of the Civil Services (Main) Examinations, 2014 was declared on 4th July, 2015. However, the name of the respondent was not shown in the main list. The consolidated reserve list was later published on 19th January, 2016 in accordance with Rule 16(4) and 16(6) of the Civil Services Examination Rules in the order of merit the name of the respondent was shown. Immediately thereafter, in terms of the order of their merit in the reserve list, candidates were considered for allotment to various Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ services on 9th March 2016. The respondent at this stage made a representation with the request that he is now medically fit and willing to take a re-medical examination, that request was not acceded to by the competent authority. The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court directed the appellant to conduct re-medical examination of the respondent-applicant and take further consequential steps thereafter within a period of four weeks under the judgment dated 6th April, 2021.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that re-medical examination at the later stage was not permissible and the manner in which discretion has been exercised by the High Court under the impugned judgment, if made permissible, will always be abused and submits that the outer limit has been fixed for six months and the word ‘ordinarily’ has to be read conjointly with the word ‘maximum’ to be exercised only in exceptional cases such as in the case of the pregnant female candidate who is unable to complete a medical examination within a period of six months. In the given facts and circumstances, the interference made by the High Court under the order of the Tribunal is not legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was the last attempt of the respondent-applicant which he had availed while participating in the selection process initiated in the year 2014 and prior thereto, upto the year 2013, there was a stipulation that the medical report was being sent to the candidate individually and it was for the first time in the selection process of the year 2014, it was dispensed with. Although the facts in reference to publication of list being uploaded of his medical examination on 17th June, 2015 is not disputed by him.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that the provision manifests that in case of a candidate who is declared ‘temporarily unfit’, the re-medical fitness certificate in terms of the provision has to be furnished within six months from the date on which the candidate was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’.
SC noted that Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules 2014 clearly indicates that such of the candidates who are declared ‘temporarily unfit’, the period specified for re-medical examination is ordinarily six months at the maximum from the date of uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department. No communication by the Department regarding findings of the Department is communicated individually and uploading takes place only by the Medical Board.
SC opined that the period of six months which has been stipulated under Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix III of CSE Rules, 2014 of which reference has been made, the word ‘ordinarily’ has to be conjointly read with the word ‘maximum’ during which the candidate has to approach for re-medical examination from the date of uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department which indicates an outer limit of six months during which it is open to the candidate to approach for re-medical examination after being declared ‘temporarily unfit’ from the date of the uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department and the fate of medical fitness is not dependent upon the result of the selection process held by the Commission.
SC stated that 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.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “this Court, while exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, 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. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.”
Case Title: Union of India v. K. Rajashekhara Reddy and Anr.
Bench: J. Ajay Rastogi and J. Vikram Nath
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4569 OF 2022
Decided on: 14th June, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
