CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of BSF Constable Declared Medically Unfit for Sub-Inspector Post

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in the Civil Appeal No. 3641 of 2023, dismissed the appeal of Pavnesh Kumar, a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), who was declared medically unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2018-19.

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal presided over the case, where Kumar contested the decision of the BSF and the subsequent affirmation by the Delhi High Court. He challenged the verdict that upheld his medical unfitness for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector.

The appellant, Pavnesh Kumar, had initially been declared medically fit in his capacity as a constable. However, upon applying for the post of Sub-Inspector through LDCE, he was found medically unfit for the reasons including Right Sided Varicocele, Varicose Vein in the left calf, and Tachycardia with a pulse rate of 110/min. Despite undergoing surgery, a review medical examination reaffirmed his unfitness.

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlighted the distinction between regular promotions and promotions through LDCE. It was emphasized that the LDCE involves specific medical standards that are independent of the general medical fitness required for the current position.

Justice Pankaj Mithal, in the judgment, clarified that Kumar was never declared medically fit for the LDCE process for the Sub-Inspector post. The Court found no substance in the appeal and upheld the decision of the Medical Board and the High Court, dismissing the appeal without any order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 28th November 2023

PAVNESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News