Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Property Disputes: Calcutta High Court Quashes Trespass And Theft Case Victim’s Absence From WhatsApp Group Does Not Negate Insult To Modesty: Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Obscene Posts Section 319 CrPC | Summoning Additional Accused Requires Evidence Stronger Than Prima Facie: Allahabad High Court Employer Cannot Plead Limitation When It Failed To Determine Gratuity: Bombay High Court On Employer’s Statutory Duty Under Section 7 Once Demand and Acceptance Are Proved, Burden Shifts to Accused: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction of Police Officer in Bribery Case BUDS Act | Law Looks At The Substance Of The Transaction, Not Its Cosmetic Garb: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Digital Gold Platform Under Seniority Tied to Appointment, Not Selection: Delhi High Court Full Bench Resolves Long-standing Conflict in BSF Recruitment Seniority Disputes Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Cannot Challenge a Document Bearing Your Own Signature By Staying Out of the Witness Box: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Injunction Suit Solar Panel Installation Does Not Amount To Industrial Use, SIPCOT Can Resume Unutilised Land: Madras High Court Article 226 Is Not A Forum To Settle Boundary Wars: Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Retaining Wall In Munnar Landslide Dispute State Cannot Exploit A Workman For 30 Years And Deny Him Pension: Orissa High Court Orders Notional Regularisation Of DLR Watchman Wrote "Main Chor Hoon" On It With A Marker — And A Man Died: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Equivalency Cannot Override Statutory Mandate of Regular Study: Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAT Order on Librarian Recruitment No Saptapadi, No Marriage: Calcutta High Court Quashes Bigamy And Cruelty Case, Rules Stamp Paper Union Is Legal Nullity Under Hindu Marriage Act Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Gurmeet Ram Rahim Acquitted in Journalist Murder Case, But Three Co-Accused Convicted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Actual Shooters FSL Ballistic Evidence Cannot Be Discredited Years After Trial Merely Because Bullets Bear Different Seals: Punjab & Haryana 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