Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Mukesh Kumar Mandal vs Uoi And Ors on 28 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 11073/2022, CM APPL. 32466/2022
CT/GD MUKESH KUMAR MANDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Bharati Raju, SPC
AC Ranjit Singh Thapa, CISF
and SI Prahlad
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving as
a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force
(CISF), praying for the following reliefs:-
"(A) Issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents to appoint (by way of LDCE-
2019) to the post of Assistant Sub-
Inspector(Exe) and grant him all
consequential benefits except back wages;
(B) Issue of Writ of Certiorari quashing the
findings of Medical Board dated 30.04.2022
and Medical Review Board dated 13.06.2022
·whereby the Respondents have declared the
Petitioner as unfit by illegally applying the
medical standards as applicable to fresh
recruits.
(C) Issue of Writ of Certiorari quashing the
Clause iii (b) in Column 11 of the Central
Industrial Security Force, Security Wing,
Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive)
Recruitment Rules, 2013."
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition
are that the petitioner was enrolled in the CISF as a Constable
(General Duty) on 26.10.2013, and has been working in the
aforementioned post since his enrolment. It is the case of the petitioner
that he has undergone multiple Annual Medical Examinations
conducted by the respondents, in which he has consistently been
adjudged to be in the Medical Category SHAPE-I.
3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Sub-
Inspector („ASI‟) Executive through the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination-2019 („LDCE‟). The petitioner passed the
written examination on 09.02.2022 and, based on his performance in
the written examination and Physical Efficiency Test, the petitioner
was called for a Medical Examination on 30.04.2022 at the CISF Unit,
SSG, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
4. In the Medical Examination held on 30.04.2022, the Petitioner
was declared medically „unfit‟ due to „Right-side Hydrocele‟ and
having a „tattoo on his right forearm‟, vide the Report dated
30.04.2022. The petitioner was given the liberty to apply for a Review
Medical Board.
5. To address the „Right-side Hydrocele‟ issue, the petitioner
underwent surgery at the J.P. Hospital and Research Center, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand, and was discharged on 06.05.2022. He subsequently
received a certificate of fitness from the District Hospital on
07.05.2022.
6. The petitioner applied for a Review Medical Board, which
examined him on 13.06.2022. However, he was again declared
medically „unfit‟ on the ground of „operated case of right side
hydrocele -03 months‟.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has always been in Medical Category SHAPE-I, therefore, he cannot
be denied „unfit‟ for appointment.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that, as per the Revised Uniform Guidelines for recruitment
medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs
and AR dated 20.05.2015, if a candidate is found to be suffering from
„Hydrocele‟, even if operated upon, he is to be declared unfit for
appointment unless more than 90 days have passed from the surgery.
9. He submits that merely because the petitioner was declared in
SHAPE-I Category in his Annual Examination, the same would not be
a ground for challenging the report of his medical examination
conducted for the LDCE. He places reliance on the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India and Other, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1583.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
11. The issue whether a candidate who is otherwise declared to be
in SHAPE-I Medical Category, can still be rejected for appointment
through the LDCE if found „unfit‟ on the medical grounds, has been
considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the present writ petition,
observing as under:-
"3. The Supreme Court in the above judgment,
has held that even though the candidate in the
routine annual medical check-up had been
declared to be in SHAPE-I category, the same
was merely the eligibility condition for
applying to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD)
through the LDCE, and was not a part of the
examination process for selection to the post
of Sub-Inspector (GD) through the LDCE. In
case the candidate does not clear the medical
examination conducted as part of the
recruitment process under the LDCE, the
candidate, in such a case, therefore would be
considered as not having cleared Stage-V of
the LDCE selection process. Further, the plea
of the candidate that the LDCE is merely a
fast-track promotion and not a case of fresh
appointment, was also rejected by the Supreme
Court, by holding that the LDCE is not a
normal promotion rather, it is selection for a
higher post from amongst the eligible
candidates working on the lower post. It was
held that the selection had to be conducted in
terms of the advertisement and the scheme of
the selection contained therein. The condition
of clearing the medical examination was,
therefore, an eligibility condition that had to
be met in addition to the candidate being in
medical category SHAPE-I.
4. In view of the above, the question of law
that has been referred to this Full Bench, is
covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Pavnesh Kumar (supra)."
12. In Pavnesh Kumar (supra), on which reliance has been placed
by the Full Bench, the Supreme Court rejected a plea similar to the
one taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the effect of the
candidate being in SHAPE-I but being found unfit in the medical
examination for LDCE, observing as under:
"13. It was next contended that the
appointment through LDCE is like fast-
track promotion and is not a fresh
appointment. Therefore, recruitment
rules and guidelines applicable to the
normal mode of promotion would have
been applied and not any different
medical standards.
14. No doubt appointment to a higher
post of an incumbent working on lower
post is in the form of an accelerated
promotion but it cannot be equated with
normal mode of promotion. This is
evident from the advertisement itself
which in unequivocal terms states that
applications are invited for selection to
the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in BSF
through LDCE. 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.
Thus, the submission that the normal
rules of promotion or medical
examination ought to have been
applied, is not acceptable.
15. This apart, selection was to be
conducted in terms of the
advertisement. The scheme of the
selection contained in the advertisement
categorically provided clearing of the
examination in all the five stages which
included detailed medical examination.
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.
16. Additionally, a distinction has to be
drawn between a normal promotion and
promotion by selection through LDCE.
Promotion by selection through
LDCE vis-à-vis competitive
examination is a facility or a chance
given for out of their promotion without
waiting for the normal course of
promotion. It in effect is selection
through competitive examination within
the limited category of candidates and
cannot be equated with normal
promotion. This being the position, the
argument that regular promotion
criteria had to be applied with regard to
medical fitness even in the matter of
selection through LDCE is not
acceptable.
17. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, we find no substance in
the appeal. There is no review of the
medical of the appellant and the
declaration that he is "medically unfit",
is not contrary to any earlier reports as
he was never declared to be medically
fit in the process of examination for
selection to Sub-Inspector (GD)
through LDCE."
13. In view of the above, the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner was declared to be in SHAPE-I
Medical Category while working as a Constable (GD), can be of no
relevance. The fact remains that the petitioner has been declared
„unfit‟ for appointment in the medical examination that was conducted
for the LDCE examination in terms of the Scheme of the examination
announced by the respondent. Stage V of the scheme required the
candidate to be declared „fit‟ in the medical examination, which the
petitioner could not meet.
14. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has later undergone an operation and has
been declared fit for duty vide the Medical Certificate dated
07.05.2022 by the District Hospital, the Revised Uniform Guidelines
referred herein above, clearly states that "an operated case of
hydrocele is disqualifying, if more than 90 days may be accepted,
provided there is no post-op complication." Therefore, if a candidate
has undergone surgery for addressing hydrocele, such candidate can
be considered only if there is no post-operative complication found
though more than 90 days have passed. In the present case, the period
of 90 days had not passed at the time of the Review Medical
Examination. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly declared „unfit‟ for
appointment by the Review Medical Examination Board. We,
therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for
petitioner.
15. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 28, 2025
SU
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
