Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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