Orissa High Court

Lalit Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. .... Opposite Party ... on 25 June, 2024

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                              W.P.(C) No.11392 of 2014

                    (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
                    Constitution of India, 1950).

                     Lalit Kumar                                 ....             Petitioner(s)
                                                      -versus-
                    Union of India & Ors.                        ....        Opposite Party (s)

                    Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
                    For Petitioner(s)       :                Mr. Agasti Kanungo, Adv.


                    For Opposite Party (s)        :                   Mr. Jateswar Nayak, CGC



                                         CORAM:
                                         DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                        DATE OF HEARING:-15.04.2024
                                       DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2024
                 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition challenges the cancellation of

his appointment on the ground that he is declared unfit by the CISF

Medical Board. The report of the CISF medical authority declaring the

Petitioner medically unfit is under challenge, which does not find any

logic when the Petitioner has been recruited to CISF after being found

medically fit. The report of the Review Medical Board does not disclose

any reason while differing with the doctor of District Head Quarter

Hospital and rejected simply indicating that the Petitioner is unfit as per

general guideline.






Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14
           I.     CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

          2.     The brief fact of the case is that:

         (i)     The Petitioner initially recruited to the (Central Industrial Security

Force) "CISF" as Constable in the year 2008 and after completion of

training at Arakonnam, served at many places, such as Ranchi, Bokaro

and presently continuing at Damanjodi.

(ii) One notification was published for recruitment of Sub-

Inspector/Executive through LDCE Vide CISF, Directorate Letter No.

2297 dated 08.08.2013. The Petitioner applied for the post. By virtue of

the Letter No 3701 dated 16.01.2014, the Petitioner was served with the

Letter to appear the written examination pursuant to which, the

Petitioner appeared in the examination. The Petitioner qualified for the

same and his name finds place at Serial No. 159 of the select list.

(iii) The Petitioner was called for physical verification and physical

efficiency test on 26.02.2014. The Petitioner was declared unfit on the

ground of single testis in the scrotum, as disclosed from the report of

the Medical Officer.

(iv) However, the Petitioner appealed to the IG/Administration, CISF

against the medical unfitness after being medically examined on

27.02.2014 by Dr. R.P. Singh, SSG, (Special Security Group), District

Hospital Greater Noida, wherein, he was declared medically unfit for

the said post.

(v) The Petitioner was intimated of the review medical examination Vide

Letter No.603 dated 27.03.2014. The review medical examination, held

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 on 7.04.2014, the petitioner was again intimated unfit by the Doctor,

CISF Hospital, Saket, New Delhi.

(vi) It is submitted that the review medical examination declaring the

Petitioner medically unfit is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of

law in as much as there is no reason, as to why the report differs from

the HQ Hospital report.

(vii) It is submitted that when the Petitioner has served the Department since

last 5-6 year and recruited on being medically qualified, in absence of

rules and instruction, cannot justify cancellation of Petitioner's

appointment.

(viii) It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have arbitrarily cancelled the

appointment based on the review medical report and the petitioner

should have been noticed and given an opportunity of hearing, when

the Review Medical Board differs with the doctor of the District Head

Quarter Hospital.

         (ix)    Hence, this Writ Petition.

          II.    SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

3. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) It is submitted that his selection to the post of Constable/GD during the

year 2008 has no relevancy with the present recruitment to the post of

Sub- inspector/Exe (LDCE) in the year 2013. The recruitment to the post

of Constable/GD and the recruitment to the post of Sub-inspector/Exe

LDCE) both are totally different, including the educational qualification.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 The post of Sub-Inspector/Exe (LDCE) is a higher post than that of

Constable/GD. Post of Sub-Inspector/Exe carries higher duties and

responsibilities. Accordingly, the candidates those who fulfill all the

eligibility criteria and qualify in all events of recruitment process will be

selected and are appointed to the post. The medical examination for the

post of Constable/GD conducted during the year 2008 and medical

examination for the post of SI/Exe held during the year 2013 are entirely

different. The Medical Boards for recruitment to the post of Sub-

Inspector/Exe (LDCE) have conducted the Medical Examination as per

the instructions issued by Ministry of Home Affairs.

(ii) It is argued that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of

Constable/GD in CISF during the year 2008. Personnel selected in the

Armed Force of the Union who are required to perform duties with

weapons are expected to be physically fit, mentally alert and perform

their duties and undertake responsibilities with honesty and sincerity.

(iii) It is contended that the applications were invited from eligible

candidates for filling up the posts of Sub-Inspector/Exe through Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination for the year 2013 vide CISF

Directorate letter No.(2297) dated 08.08.2013. The petitioner is also a

candidate and applied for the post in the above recruitment.

(iv) It is emphasized that the petitioner has appeared in the written

examination for the post conducted on 02.02.2014. He qualified the

written examination.

(v) It is further submitted that on appeal, the petitioner was allowed to

appear in the Review Medical Examination at CISF, NHCC, Saket, New

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 Delhi. On 11.04.2014, the Review Medical Examination Board, after

detailed examination, declared the Petitioner UNFIT on account of un-

descended testis (Left side).

(vi) It is submitted that the averments of the Petitioner are baseless and

untenable. The Medical Boards have conducted the Medical

Examination and Review Medical Examination in free and fair manner

as per the instructions of Government of India/Ministry of Home

Affairs. The Medical Boards have not committed any illegal or arbitrary

acts against the principles of law.

(vii) It is reiterated that it is fact that the Petitioner has put in 5-6 years of

service in the Department. The Petitioner is still serving in this

Department as Constable/GD for which he has been appointed earlier.

But, this will not entitle him for his selection and appointment to a

higher post ignoring the requirements of the recruitment procedure.

The Petitioner's averments are false, as his appointment to the post of

Constable/GD has not been cancelled at any point of time and is still

holding the post and serving at CISF Unit, NALCO Damanjodi.

(viii) It is submitted that averments of the petitioner are far from truth. The

petitioner has never been issued offer of appointment to the post of Sub-

Inspector/Exe in CISF and thus question for cancellation of his offer of

appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector/Exe in CISF as well as giving

him opportunity for personal hearing does not arise. Above all, the

Petitioner has never been selected to the post of Sub-Inspector/Exe in

CISF.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14

(ix) Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, accordingly, prays for

dismissal of this Writ Petition.

III. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

4. Consequent upon qualifying the written examination, the Petitioner

was called to appear in the Physical Verification, Physical Efficiency

Test and Medical Examination on 26.02.2014 at CISF Unit, SSG, Greater

Noida. As the petitioner qualified in the Physical Verification, Physical

Efficiency Test, he was allowed to appear in the Medical Examination.

After detailed examination, the Petitioner was declared unfit by the

Medical Board on the ground of 'single testis' in his scrotum.

5. The post of Sub-Inspector/Exe (LDCE) is a higher post than that of a

Constable/GD which carries higher responsibilities and duties. For

selection to the post of Sub-Inspector/Exe certain educational

qualification and other eligibility criteria including medical standards

have been prescribed. Candidates those who fulfill all the eligibility

criteria and qualify in all events of recruitment process including the

medical examination are only selected and appointed to the post.

6. The Delhi High Court has confronted with a case of similar nature i.e.

Km. Priyanka v. Union of India & Ors.1, the Court has held that the

standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces

is more stringent than for the civilian employment. It was held that it is

the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties

Signature Not

Verified W.P.(C) 10783/2020 (Delhi High Court) Digitally Signed

Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 and the physical standards required to discharge the same. It further

held as under:

"8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces."

7. The Petitioner's selection to the post of Constable/GD during the year

2008 has no relevancy with the present recruitment to the post of Sub-

inspector/Exe (LDCE) in the year 2013. The standards prescribed for the

recruitment to the post of Constable/GD and the recruitment to the post

of Sub-inspector/Exe LDCE) both are totally different, including the

educational qualification. The post of Sub-Inspector/Exe (LDCE) is a

higher post than that of Constable/GD. Post of Sub-Inspector/Exe carries

higher duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the candidates those

who fulfill all the eligibility criteria and qualify in all events of

recruitment process will be selected and appointed to the post. The

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 medical examination for the post of Constable/GD conducted during

the year 2008 and medical examination for the post of SI/Exe held