[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Shashi Prabhakar Das vs Union Of India Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18.02.2025
Pronounced on: 20.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 6683/2023
SHASHI PRABHAKAR DAS .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Gupta and Mr. S.S.
Dhir, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar and Ms.
Gaurangi Mehrotra, Adv.
AC B. Pradhan and SI
PrahladDevenda.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:
A. Issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside
the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the
respondent no.4 wherein the petitioner
has been terminated from service with
immediate effect.
B. Issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari setting aside the final medical
board proceeding dated 08.03.2021 and
reconsider the medical opinion as has
issued by JLN Hospital Ajmer dated
27.10.2020.
C. Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent no.3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 1 of 25
19:53:40
to reinstate the petitioner in service with
immediate effect considering the medical
report as has issued by JLN Hospital
Ajmer dated 27.10.2020.
D. Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent no.1
to pay the full arrear salary, to the
petitioner from the date of termination till
the disposal of the instant writ petition.”
2. The petitioner, Shashi Prabhakar Das, was appointed as a
Probationer in the post of Constable/GD in the Central Industrial
Security Force (‘CISF’) following his selection through the SSC
Examination, 2015. Pursuant to his selection, an offer of appointment
was issued to him on 15.03.2017 by the Commandant, CISF Unit,
ECL(S), and he was instructed to report to RTC Deoli on 02.04.2017
to undergo his basic training, which was scheduled to commence from
10.04.2017. In compliance with the said directions, the petitioner
reported at RTC Deoli, and joined the basic training. At the time of his
joining, the petitioner was declared to be physically, mentally, and
medically fit.
3. During the course of training, on 05.06.2017, however, the
petitioner collapsed after his morning run. He was initially taken to a
local hospital and subsequently, admitted to the MICU at Narayana
Multi-Specialty Hospital in Jaipur. The petitioner was diagnosed with
viral haemorrhagic fever with 108 degrees Fahrenheit temperature
with chills, multi-organ dysfunction, vomiting, and abnormal
behaviour. He remained admitted in the hospital for about two weeks.
He was discharged from the hospital on 20.06.2017 with residual
Central Nervous System (CNS) manifestations, including impaired
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 2 of 25
19:53:40
Higher Mental Functions (HMF), slurred speech, and abnormal
behaviour.
4. Following his discharge, the hospital authorities advised the
petitioner complete home rest for a period of one month until
21.07.2017. His recovery, however, required extended rest, and he
was further advised home rest for fifteen days, from 19.07.2017 to
03.08.2017.
5. On 04.08.2017, the petitioner re-joined his duties at RTC Deoli
and was referred for medical diagnosis at Narayana Multi-specialty
Hospital, Jaipur, where he was advised two days of rest.
6. Subsequently, the CISF authorities, considering his health,
extended his home rest on multiple occasions under the condition of
‘No Work, No Pay’, spanning from 10.08.2017 to 22.01.2018. During
this period, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his training and
was placed under medical supervision.
7. On 23.01.2018, the petitioner re-joined duty at RTC Deoli with
a fitness certificate. He was subsequently transferred to Ikai NALCO
Angul Unit, Odisha, to perform regular duties. The petitioner reported
for duty at Ikai NALCO Angul Unit, Odisha on 31.01.2018 and
continued to serve at the said Unit without any absence until
31.08.2018.
8. On 01.09.2018, the Commandant of the CISF issued a
Movement Order, directing the petitioner to report back to RTC Deoli
for the completion of his basic training, along with a fitness certificate
issued by the concerned authorities.
9. The petitioner reported back to RTC Deoli on 04.09.2018,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 3 of 25
19:53:40
however, instead of being assigned the basic training, he was assigned
to regular duty.
10. On 12.11.2018, the CISF Medical Board declared the petitioner
‘unfit‟ to undergo basic training for a period of six months.
Consequently, the petitioner continued to perform regular duties for a
period of nine months.
11. On 17.07.2019, the petitioner was once again declared unfit to
undergo basic training for a further period of six months and was
again placed on regular duty.
12. The condition of the petitioner, however, necessitated further
medical evaluations, therefore, on 31.01.2020, the petitioner was sent
to AIIMS Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi for a medical
examination, where he was diagnosed with mild ‘Dysarthria’.
Consequently, he was declared „unfit‟ for basic training for a further
period of 24 weeks by the CISF Unit/SSG/Greater Noida.
13. Upon completion of the 24-week period, a review Special
Medical Board (‘SMB’) was conducted on 15.09.2020, and the
petitioner was referred to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer on
23.10.2020, and further to JLN Hospital, Ajmer for a medical opinion.
14. It is the claim of the petitioner that on 27.10.2020, JLN
Hospital, Ajmer declared the petitioner to be ‘fit‟, with his speech and
language being normal within the limits of his proficiency in Hindi.
However, despite this declaration, the petitioner was not reinstated
into basic training and continued to serve in regular duties.
15. The petitioner claims that thereafter, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the medical board was continuously postponed, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 4 of 25
19:53:40
petitioner continued to serve in regular duties.
16. Part-I of the Medical Board Proceedings was held at RTC Deoli
on 02.01.2021, followed by another referral to JLN Hospital by the
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer on 22.02.2021 for a further
medical opinion.
17. Subsequently, on 09.02.2021, the Competent Authority at RTC
Deoli forwarded a letter dated 09.02.2021 to the Commandant, CISF
Unit NALCO Angul Odisha, highlighting the petitioner’s incomplete
training due to the non-availability of a specialist doctor.
18. Thereafter, on 05.03.2021, JLN Hospital, Ajmer opined that the
petitioner had mild Dysarthria, which might improve with speech
therapy, though some deficit in speech could persist.
19. On 08.03.2021, Part-II of the Medical Board was held at the
Composite Hospital, Ajmer. It declared the petitioner ‘Not Fit’ for
basic training.
20. Based on this medical assessment, the petitioner was terminated
from service with immediate effect as per Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the
CISF Rules, 2001 by the Impugned Order dated 06.04.2021, issued
pursuant to a letter dated 12.03.2021 of RTC Deoli based on the report
of the Medical Board Proceedings, Composite Hospital, Ajmer, which
found the petitioner „not fit‟ for basic training. The petitioner was
given one month’s salary in lieu of the one month notice period.
21. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a representation
on 22.06.2021, seeking reconsideration of his case based on his
special circumstances. Additionally, on 24.06.2021, the petitioner
served a legal notice through his advocate. The representations were,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 5 of 25
19:53:40
however, rejected vide Order dated 03.09.2021, which compelled the
petitioner to file the present petition .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Indrani Gupta,
submitted that the termination of the petitioner from service, vide
Order dated 06.04.2021, was arbitrary, unjust, and in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice. It was argued that the respondents
acted mechanically on the recommendations of the Medical Board,
ignoring the petitioner’s medical history and the special circumstances
leading to his condition.
23. She submitted that the petitioner had been declared ‘Fit’ by the
JLN Hospital, Ajmer, on 27.10.2020, wherein it was specifically
noted that the petitioner’s speech and language were normal and
within the limits of his proficiency in Hindi. This medical opinion, she
submitted, was disregarded by the respondents without any cogent
reason.
24. It was submitted that the respondents acted in a manner
contrary to Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which mandates the
consideration of special circumstances before terminating an
individual on medical grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the
respondents, despite knowing that the petitioner’s medical issues arose
during the course of his rigorous training at RTC Deoli, failed to
exercise their discretionary power judiciously and instead, proceeded
with the petitioner’s termination in a mechanical fashion.
25. She submitted that the petitioner suddenly fell unconscious after
his prolonged morning run, forming part of his active training, as a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 6 of 25
19:53:40
consequence of the extreme temperatures of Deoli, Rajasthan,
shooting upto 50 degrees Celsius, and thereafter was taken to a local
hospital.
26. It was further submitted that the decision of the respondents to
declare the petitioner unfit without considering the petitioner’s actual
work performance was misplaced. She submitted that despite his
medical condition, the petitioner had been performing his duties
diligently and without any complaints during his tenure at Ikai
NALCO Angul Unit, Odisha and subsequently at RTC Deoli. This, it
was argued, was indicative of the petitioner’s capability to discharge
his responsibilities despite his speech impairment.
27. Further, she submitted that paragraph 7(f) of the Revised
Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed
Police Forces and Assam Rifles, states that slight stammering, after 4
or 5 sentences, falls within minor acceptable defects, which is the case
of the petitioner.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly Section
20 thereof. It was argued that the petitioner suffers
from Dysarthria and Diffuse Cerebellar Atrophy, which are
recognized disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act. It was, thus, submitted that the respondents failed to provide the
petitioner with the necessary accommodations as mandated by law.
29. Ms. Gupta also submitted that the petitioner, after recovering,
has discharged his regular/general duties for a period of 3 years and 4
months without any hindrance and as such, his disability has never
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 7 of 25
19:53:40
come in the way of him discharging his duty, thus, his discharge is
unwarranted and illegal.
30. To strengthen the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the Judgement dated 17.12.2021 of the Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2021 titled Ravinder Kumar
Dhariwal&Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.; Judgement dated
13.02.2003 in Civil Appeal No. 1789/2000 titled Kunal Singh v.
Union of India &Anr.; of this Court in Rati Ram v. Union of India
&Ors., 2016:DHC:2308-DB; and of the Bombay High Court in
Judgement dated 04.03.2019 in WP No. 6806/2014 titled Shankar
Kumar vs Union of India &Ors.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
31. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Gagan Kumar, on
the other hand, submitted that the termination of the petitioner from
service was carried out in strict compliance with Rules 25(2) and
26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001. It was contended that the petitioner
was declared medically unfit after a thorough and transparent
assessment by the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer, which is the
designated medical authority for such evaluations.
32. He submitted that the petitioner’s medical condition
of Dysarthria and slurred speech, rendered him unfit to perform the
duties of a Constable/GD in CISF, which requires impeccable
communication skills and physical fitness. The respondents contended
that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to recuperate and re-
join his training, but his medical condition did not improve to the
required standards.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 8 of 25
19:53:40
33. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner was
assessed not only by JLN Hospital, Ajmer but also
by AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital, and the Research and Referral
Hospital, Army Delhi, all of which concluded that the petitioner was
unfit for training. He submitted that the final report
dated 18.08.2023 from the Research and Referral Hospital reaffirmed
the petitioner’s unfitness, justifying his termination.
34. It was argued that the CISF Medical Manual, 2017,
particularly Paragraph 6.9 and 9.X.(g) thereof, lays down the
procedures for assessing medical fitness and the consequences of
prolonged unfitness. It was submitted that the petitioner did not meet
the requisite medical standards, and allowing him to continue would
compromise the operational efficiency of the Force.
35. The learned counsel further argued that the Notification dated
18.08.2021, which exempts the CISF from the purview of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, applies squarely to the
petitioner’s case. As a paramilitary force entrusted with sensitive
security operations, it was contended that the CISF is not required to
accommodate individuals who do not meet its medical standards,
including those with neurological or speech disorders that impair
effective communication and physical performance.
36. He also contended that the principles of natural justice were
duly followed, as the petitioner was given repeated opportunities to
recover, was subjected to multiple medical evaluations, and was
granted home rest and alternative duties during his period of recovery.
It was further argued that the petitioner had not been singled out, and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 9 of 25
19:53:40
that the decision was in line with established norms and procedures of
the force.
37. He submitted that the petitioner has not assailed the Medical
Reports and that the Medical Boards are expert bodies that have been
constituted for such evaluations, therefore, their opinion ought not to
be interfered with, except in cases where manifest illegality is
demonstrated.
38. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the
Judgment of this Court in Neha v. Union of India &Ors.,
2022:DHC:004547.
39. In conclusion, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the
present writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner’s termination
was legal, justified, and in accordance with medical assessments,
which are final and binding under the CISF Rules.
REJOINDER OF THE PETITIONER
40. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
as per the guidelines dated 28.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, such form of disability as the petitioner is having, which is
only a minor impairment that is fully under control, and otherwise the
petitioner is fit for all duties under medical observation, that there
should be no employability restrictions.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
41. Having considered the pleadings, the submissions of the learned
counsels, and the material placed on record, this Court proceeds to
examine the issues arising in the present case.
42. The primary issue for consideration is whether the termination
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 10 of 25
19:53:40
of the petitioner from service on medical grounds, was legally
justified and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
43. At the outset, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 25(2) and
Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001, which are as under:
“25. Probation –
xxxxx
(2) If during the period of probation the
appointing authority is of the opinion that a
member of the Force is not fit for permanent
appointment, the appointing authority may
discharge him or terminate the services from
the Force after issue of notice of one month or
after giving one month’s pay in lieu of such
notice, or revert him to the rank from which he
was promoted or repatriate to his parent
department as the case may be.
xxxxx
26. Termination –
xxxxx
(4) During the period of probation or its
extension thereof, as the case may be, the
appointing authority may without assigning
any reason terminate the services of a member
of the Force on the grounds of furnishing false
or incorrect information at the time of
appointment of that member of the Force or
for his failure to pass the basic training or
repeat course, by tendering a notice of one
month to that effect or one month‟s pay in lieu
thereof.”
44. Upon a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident
that if, during the period of probation, the Appointing Authority is of
the opinion that a member of the Force is unfit for permanent
appointment, the Authority is empowered to terminate the services of
such probationer from the Force after issuance of a notice of one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 11 of 25
19:53:40
month or by paying one month’s salary in lieu thereof. It is also
relevant to observe that the said Authority is not mandated to assign
any reasons for the same and may choose to terminate the services of
a probationer by issuance of the said notice. Further, the proviso to
Rule 25(1) postulates that no member shall ordinarily be kept on
probation for more than twice the period prescribed under the relevant
recruitment rules.
45. In the present case, the Impugned Order of termination dated
06.04.2021 was passed by the competent authority, and
thereafter, vide Order dated 03.09.2021, the representation filed by the
petitioner against the said order was rejected by the Inspector General,
CISF.
46. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to reiterate that the scope of judicial review in cases
questioning medical opinion rendered by duly constituted Medical
Boards, is fairly limited. These Boards, being expert bodies, give
categorical opinion after due evaluation of all relevant factors
concerning an individual’s health. The Courts, lacking medical
expertise, cannot substitute their own views in place of the Medical
Board’s findings, and the Courts have to rely on the same and not
interfere unless the said opinion is demonstrated to be illegal, biased,
actuated by extraneous considerations, found to have not taken into
account the relevant Rules, or being bereft of cogent reasons. The
same has also been observed in Neha (supra), the relevant potion of
which is quoted hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 12 of 25
19:53:40
“This Court sitting under writ jurisdiction is
not to judge the manner followed or comment
upon the eligibility criteria adopted by the
respondents as that would tantamaount to
treading upon an unfamiliar path. According
tois, it is too far-fetched for this Court totry to
or indeed cross the boundariesto charter into
inaccessible lands without any knowledge or
instructions inthat regard. This Court, thus,
refrains from commenting anything upon
thepolicy adopted or the rules and regulations
followed or, much less, theprocedure followed
by the respondents. The Forces are the best
judges to settheir own standards for selection
as per their own discretion, whichgenerally
merits no interference by a Court of law, save
and unless, in caseof some grave exceptional
circumstances.”
47. In the backdrop of the above, we may now proceed to examine
the case at hand.
48. The petitioner, being a probationer, could not complete his
Basic Training even after a lapse of four years owing to his medical
condition, namely Dysarthria, and has challenged the termination of
his services as a Constable (GD) in the CISF.
49. From the perusal of the records and accompanying medical
reports, it emerges that on 05.06.2017, the petitioner fell unconscious
post his morning run, and was admitted to MICU at Narayana Multi-
Speciality Hospital, Jaipur. He was diagnosed with viral hemorrhagic
fever with chills, high-grade fever of 108°F, multi-organ dysfunction,
vomiting, and abnormal behaviour. He was discharged on 20.06.2017,
with an advice of home rest for one month till 21.07.2017. Thereafter,
further rest was advised till 03.08.2017, and the petitioner was asked
to report back on 04.08.2017. The petitioner re-joined his duties at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 13 of 25
19:53:40
RTC Deoli on 04.08.2017, and was referred for medical diagnosis at
Narayana Multi-specialty Hospital, Jaipur, where he was advised two
days of rest. Thereafter, the petitioner was further prescribed periodic
home rest by the RTC Deoli through subsequent medical advices, and
the petitioner eventually reported to RTC Deoli on 23.01.2018 with a
fitness certificate, and was transferred to Ikai NALCO Angul Unit,
Odisha for joining regular duties.
50. Subsequently, vide Movement Order dated 01.09.2018, the
respondents sent the petitioner to RTC Deoli for completion of his
Basic Training, and the petitioner reported at RTC Deoli on
04.09.2018. However, he was declared medically unfit to undergo
training, vide Medical Board Proceedings dated 12.11.2018, for a
further six months with effect from 12.11.2018. The relevant extract
from the said proceedings is reproduced as under:
“(18) Examination of the board
The Board has examined the individual in
detail. The details are as under:
(i) Brief History: The individual was referred
to govt hospital Deoli and subsequently to
Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Jaipur with
chief complaint of sudden onset of high-grade
fever with chills (108 F), Altered sensorium
with bowel bladder incontinence, vomiting and
abnormal behaviour. Patient admitted to
MICU at Narayana Multispecialty Hospital,
Jaipur for further evaluation and
management. During the course of treatment
individual developed severe
thrombocytopenia, subconjunctival bleed,
erythematous rash, hypotension, myocarditis,
acute kidney injury and encephalopathy.
Individual was diagnosed as a case of viral
haemorrhagic fever with multi organ
dysfunction. Individual was managed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 14 of 25
19:53:40
conservatively with vasopressors and
mechanical Examination individual was
discharged on 20.06.2017 in stable condition
with dysarthria. The individual was referred
in. S.M.S Hospital Jaipur for specialist
opinion. MRI brain done on dated 22.10.2018
reveals Prominent Cerebellar Folia, 4th
ventricle and basal cisterns suggestive of
diffuse Cerebellar atrophy. OPINION OF
SPECIALIST Board SMS, HOSPITAL,
JAIPUR D.NO. 1824(2)/MB/18 dated
24/10/2018 is attached. He has opined “We
board members clinically examined the patient
Shashi Prabhakar Das. He has residual
dysarthria with past history of viral
meningoencephalitis in June 2017. He is not
on any treatment for past 1 year. Presently he
has only residualdysarthria with no other
significant motor and cognitive detail. He is
able to understand spoken words and able to
communicate with others with residual
dysarthria. He is fit for all motor functions of
limbs with normal cognition.
xxxxx
(vii) Opinion of the board:
In view of the above Specialist opinion,
Investigations and examination by the board,
the board is of the opinion that the individual
by name SASID PRABHAKAR DAS (CISF
NO. 170158945) IS UNFIT TO UNDERGO
TRAINING FOR A PERIOD OF 06
MONTHS W.E.F 12-11-18.
19. Was the Disability Contracted in : YES
Service
20. Is it strictly attributable to the Conditions
ofService : NO”
51. Notably, in Paragraph 19 of the Medical Board Proceedings
dated 12.11.2018, it was stated that although the disability wasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 15 of 25
19:53:40
contracted during service, it was not attributable to service conditions.
The petitioner has not challenged this specific finding of the Medical
Board.
52. He was then placed on regular duty for the next nine months.
53. On 17.07.2019, the petitioner was again declared „unfit‟ to
undergo training for an additional six months with effect from
17.07.2019 by CISF Unit, RTC Deoli.
54. On 30.01.2020, he was referred to AIIMS Delhi and to the
Safdarjung Hospital, where he was diagnosed with mild Dysarthria
and was again declared ‘unfit’ for Basic Training for 24 weeks by
CISF Unit /SSG/Greater Noida.
55. It is further noted that lastly, on 08.03.2021, Part-II of the
Medical Board held at the Composite Hospital, Ajmer, rendered its
opinion declaring the petitioner as ‘Unfit‟ for undergoing Basic
Training. The findings and opinion of the said Medical Board are
extracted hereinbelow:
“MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDING PART-II
F.NO./IRLANO170158945 RankCT/UT NAME SHASHI P. DAS
Unit/Office. CISF RTC DEOLI has appeared this day of 08/03/2021
before medical board.
Sd/-
Signature of Individual
OPINION OF THE BOARD
S.No. Finding of the Board: Individual is anSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 16 of 25
19:53:40
1. old K/C/O/ Dysarthria since June,
2017. There was history of High grade
fever illegible sensorium (MRI Brain
S/o Diffuse cerebellar Atrophy) during
June 2017 & Admitted at Narayana
Hospital Jaipur for the same.
Hecompleted his speech therapy at
Jaipur AIIMS Delhi during 2020. But at
present, mild Dysarthria is still present.
Hence, the Board of the opinion that he
is not fit (NOT FIT) for the training.
2. Was the disability contract in service COI not
as per COI? admitted.
3. Was contracted in circumstances YES
over which he had no control?
4. Is it directly attributed to condition NO
of service as per COI?
5. If so by what specific condition? N/A
6. If not directly attributed to service, N/A
was it aggravated their and if so, by
what specific condition?
7. Medical category recommended N/A
8. Percentage of disability with N/A
calculation sheet wherever available
9. Period for which the above medical N/A
category is recommended
10. Further treatment/Investigation NO
required.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 17 of 25
19:53:40
11. Period of leave recommended (if N/A
any)
12. Next board due on N/A
13. FIT/UNFIT UNFIT
56. From the above, it is evident that there is a consistent opinion of
the Medical Boards affirming that the petitioner was ‘unfit’ to undergo
Basic Training. It is significant to note that it is not the case of the
petitioner that the respondents have acted with any mala fides, nor has
any such allegation been substantiated on record.
57. The primary contention of the petitioner is that on 15.09.2020,
during the course of the Review SMB, he was referred to the
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer, and subsequently to JLN Hospital,
Ajmer, for a medical opinion, wherein, on 27.10.2020, he was
allegedly declared ‘fit’ and it was noted that he had ‘Normal Speech.’
However, upon careful perusal of the very document annexed by the
petitioner himself, that is, the report issued by the Composite Hospital,
CRPF, GC-1, Ajmer, it becomes manifest that the said observation
pertains solely to his discharge from COVID-19 quarantine. The
endorsement of ‘fit to resume duties’ must be considered in the limited
context of his discharge from COVID-19 quarantine. The same is
further strengthened by the advisory contained therein, directing him
to adhere to precautionary measures such as maintaining physical
distancing, wearing of face mask, etc. The relevant portion of the said
document is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 18 of 25
19:53:40
“COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, CRPF, GC-1,
AJMERF. No. 170158.945 Rank: CT/40 Name: Sashi
Parbakar Das W/O, S/O, D/O, F/O, M/O- SELF
AGE/SEX-23/M Unit- CISF was kept in COVID-
19, quarantine/Isolation at GC-1, Ajmer, w.e.f.
10.10.20 to 23.10.20 He/She was regularly
monitored during the mentioned period. He/She is
fit to resume duties w.e.f. 24.10.2020 by following
the below mentioned precautionary measures.
1. Physical distancing
2. Use of mask as advised.
3. Frequent hand washing.
4. Following cough etiquettes,
5. Self-Monitoring and reporting any illness at
the earliest.
Sign of Individual
With name
Sd/- 23.10.2020″
58. The next averment of the petitioner is that he was referred to
JLN Hospital, where he was declared to have ‘normal speech’. In this
regard, it is pertinent to notethat while the said document does contain
observations about the petitioner’s speech being normal within his
proficiency in Hindi, the petitioner has not placed on record any
document to substantiate that he was referred there by the respondents
to ascertain his fitness for undergoing Basic Training. Be that as it
may, even assuming the existence of such a document, the contents
thereof merely reflect a provisional diagnosis and record that the
petitioner exhibited normal speech. There is, however, no observation,
conclusion or specific certification in the said medical report, which
certifies the petitioner’s medical fitness to undergo Basic Training.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 19 of 25
19:53:40
The relevant portion of the said document reads as under:
59. Therefore, neither of the two documents, the first being that
from the Composite Hospital, CRPF, GC-1, Ajmer, which pertains
solely to the petitioner’s discharge from COVID-19 quarantine, whileSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 20 of 25
19:53:40
the second being a separate report from JLN Hospital that notes
normal speech, certifies the petitioner’s fitness to undergo Basic
Training.
60. Another submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that
he had been discharging his duties in the Force for nearly four years
without any impediment, and therefore, he ought to be permitted to
continue in service as he can discharge duties despite his impairment.
We find no merit in the said contention. It is an admitted position that
the petitioner was serving on probation and had not been confirmed in
service. It is well within the prerogative of the respondents to
determine the suitability of an individual for induction and retention
especially in Armed Forces, as they have their own rigours of service.
A probationer, such as the petitioner, cannot claim a right to be
retained in service, particularly at this probationary stage.
61. At this stage, it becomes relevant to note that upon challenge to
the aforesaid termination order, this Court, vide Order dated
05.07.2023, directed that the petitioner be referred to the Research and
Referral Hospital of the Army at Delhi for a fresh medical re-
examination. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was examined by the
Medical Board of the said Hospital, which, in its report dated
18.08.2023, once again declared the petitioner ‘Unfit’ as per
Paragraph 6.9 and 9.X.(g) of the CISF Medical Manual, 2017. The
said report was brought on record and produced before this Court
during the course of hearings held on 28.02.2024 and 21.01.2025. The
relevant extracts from the said Manual are reproduced herein below:
“6. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 21 of 25
19:53:40
9) Stammering, as specified later”
62. In this regard, we may also note the observation of the Calcutta
High Court in Dinesh Paswan v. Union of India, (2013) SCC OnLine
Cal 19803, wherein, dealing with the validity of termination of service
during the period of probation, it was observed as under:
“The law is now very well settled that a
probationer has no substantive right to the
post and he cannot complain if his service is
terminated before confirmation. This is done
as a protection on the part of the employer
against selecting a wrong employee and then
being required to continue with him for the
rest of the service period. The Supreme Court
had said that they are ‘taken on trial’ and that
is why there is a period of probation which
after successful completion is followed by
confirmation. If during the period of probation
the appointee is not found fit for permanent
retention the employer is within his power to
terminate the service of the probationer. The
right of the appointee after the period of
probation when he has not received any order
either of termination or of confirmation was
the subject-matter of some dispute……”
63. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the respondents in the present
matter. The petitioner’s period of probation had already exceeded two
years and was extended up to the maximum permissible limit, that is,
twice the original probationary period, as stipulated under the CISF
Rules, 2001. In terms of Rule 25(1) of the Rules, no member of the
Force may be continued on probation beyond twice the period
prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules. In view of the
petitioner’s failure to meet the requisite standards within the
permissible extended probationary period, his services were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 22 of 25
19:53:40
accordingly terminated vide Order dated 06.04.2021.
64. It is well settled that during the period of probation, it is the
subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority that determines
whether a probationer is fit for confirmation or liable to be discharged
from service. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate
that the petitioner has been cured of the underlying medical condition
which rendered him unfit for training.
65. Considering the sensitive and critical nature of duties
undertaken by members of the CISF, it was incumbent upon the
respondents to ensure that the petitioner was medically ‘fit’ to undergo
Basic Training. In light of the consistent and considered opinions
rendered by multiple Medical Boards, we find no justification to
interfere in the present case.
66. The petitioner has also sought to rely upon Section 20 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to contend that no
discrimination can be made in matters of employment against a person
with disability. While we acknowledge the importance of this
legislation in promoting equal opportunities for persons with
disabilities, however, we are not persuaded to accept the said
argument.The Armed Forces, by the very nature of their functioning,
are governed by strict rigours and operational exigencies which
demand the highest standards of physical and mental fitness from their
personnel. The Force cannot be compelled to relax its stringent
medical standards prescribed for recruitment. We also note that the
notification dated 18.08.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment has exempted CISF from certain provisions of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 23 of 25
19:53:40
Act, including Section 20(1). Moreover, the petitioner, being
appointed to the post of Constable (General Duty), is required to
conform to the standards expected by the Force. His continuation in
service is contingent upon his satisfying those standards.
67. It would also be pertinent to refer to the observation made by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jyoti Thakur v. Union of India,
2020 SCC OnLine Del 1869, which involved a case concerning a
probationer who was declared medically ‘Unfit’ for the position of
Sub-Inspector in the CISF. The relevant extract is reproduced as
under:
“12. No doubt everyone values employment
opportunities. But where certain eligibility
criteria have been prescribed, it would be
wrong for the courts to meddle with those
standards and water them down, because costs
would have to be paid by the country
subsequently. No candidate who does not fulfil
the medical standards can be inducted, as it
would be detrimental to the discipline in the
Forces as such persons would be placed in
‘low medical category and posted in ‘soft areas
and duty’, whereas the burden on others to
serve at hard stations and posts would
increase disproportionally.”
68. In view of the overall conspectus of facts and circumstances, we
are of the considered view that the Appointing Authority has rightly
exercised its powers under the CISF Rules, 2001 while passing the
Impugned Order of termination. The petitioner’s representation was
also duly considered and disposed of by the Inspector General through
a reasoned order, after examining the entire service record and
medical history of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 24 of 25
19:53:40
69. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions
of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), Kunal Singh (supra) and Rati
Ram (supra) is misplaced, as the facts and circumstances in those
cases are clearly distinguishable. Notably, in none of the said cases
were the petitioners therein probationers. The judgments relied upon
were rendered in their own peculiar facts and do not support the
petitioner’s case in the present matter.
70. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Orders.
71. The present petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
MAY 20, 2025
FRK/SK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 6683/2023
Signing Date:20.05.2025 Page 25 of 25
19:53:40
[ad_2]
Source link