Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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