Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
K. Rajashekhara Reddy And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 4569 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 2956 of 2022)
Decided on : 14-06-2022
For the Petitioner(s):Balbir Singh, Shyam Gopal, Prahlad Singh, Samar Vir Singh, Naman Tandon, K. Gurumurthy, Surbhi Singh, Sagrika Kaul, Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Nikhil Swami, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In case of a candidate who is declared ‘temporarily unfit’, re-medical fitness certificate in terms of provision has to be furnished within six months from date on which candidate was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’.
Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment – [Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of CSE Rules 2014] – IAS, IFS, IPS, Central Civil Services Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ posts – Medical examination of candidates – In case of a candidate who is declared ‘temporarily unfit’, re-medical fitness certificate in terms of provision has to be furnished within six months from date on which candidate was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’ – Such of candidates who are declared ‘temporarily unfit’, period specified for re-medical examination is ordinarily six months at the maximum from the date of uploading of medical examination report on Website of Department – No communication by Department regarding findings of Department is communicated individually and uploading takes place only by Medical Board – Case of respondent-applicant on legal foundation is not sustainable but it was the fifth and last attempt of respondent-applicant during which he appeared in CSE, 2014 and before year 2014, examinations which were conducted by appellant, medical report was always made available to individual candidate and it is only for first time in year 2014, this clause was inserted where medical reports are being uploaded on Website of Department which was considered to be notice to all candidates who had participated in selection process which might have created some confusion with respondent-applicant – This Court, while exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of Constitution, to do complete justice, consider it appropriate to direct that based on re-medical fitness report, appellant may consider case of respondent-applicant for appointment as per his placement in consolidated reserve list originally published of CSE, 2014 on 19th January, 2016, subject to police verification, with all notional benefits including seniority, pay scale and other consequential benefits but not actual salary for period for which he has not worked, within a period of four weeks from today – Judgment of High Court impugned quashed and set aside. (Paras 17, 19, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh while setting aside order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5th September, 2017 directing the present appellant to conduct re-medical examination of the respondent-applicant and take consequential steps thereafter within a period of four weeks.
Findings of Court:
Word ‘ordinarily’ in isolation as interpreted by the High Court without taking recourse to the word ‘maximum’ as referred, is not sustainable in law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh while setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5th September, 2017 directing the present appellant to conduct re-medical examination of the respondent-applicant and take consequential steps thereafter within a period of four weeks.
3. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the purpose are that the Civil Services Examination, 2014 (hereinafter being referred to as the “CSE 2014”) was notified by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter being referred to as the “UPSC”) on 31st May, 2014 holding recruitment to 24 participating services including IAS, IFS, IPS, Central Civil Services Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ posts.
4. In response to the notification dated 31st May 2014, the respondent-applicant had also participated in the selection process and on being successful in the preliminary examination, appeared in the main examination held in December, 2014 and after qualifying the same, was called for an interview scheduled on 2nd June 2015. On 3rd June 2015, the respondent-applicant attended the medical examination at B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, New Delhi and the medical report of the respondent was uploaded on the website of the Department on 17th June 2015. However, in the said medical report, it was opined that the required Body Mass Index (in short “BMI”) should be not more than 30 but since the BMI of the respondent-applicant was 32, he was declared ‘temporarily unfit’.
5. The result of the Civil Services (Main) Examinations, 2014 was declared on 4th July, 2015 recommending 1236 candidates in their order of merit for appointment to various All India Services for Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. However, the name of the respondent-applicant was not shown in the main list. The consolidated reserve list was later published on 19th January, 2016 in accordance with Rule 16(4) and 16(6) of the Civil Services Examination Rules in the order of merit the name of the respondent-applicant was shown at Sl. No. 16. Immediately thereafter, in terms of the order of their merit in the reserve list, candidates were considered for allotment to various Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ services on 9th March 2016. The respondent-applicant at this stage made a representation on 10th March, 2016 with the request that he is now medically fit and willing to take a re-medical examination (which admittedly was beyond the period of six months), that request was not acceded to by the competent authority, that became the cause of grievance for filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent-applicant.
6. The learned Tribunal, in the first instance, by an interim order dated 17th August, 2016 directed the appellant to send him for re-medical examination. Because of non-compliance, a contempt petition was also filed by the respondent-applicant but the fact is neither the re-medical examination was conducted nor any action was further taken by the applicant in compliance of the interim order of the learned Tribunal.
7. However, the OA was finally heard and dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 5th September, 2017 on the premise that the medical report of the respondent-applicant was uploaded declaring him to be ‘temporarily unfit’ on 17th June, 2015 and since no efforts were made for making an application for re-medical examination within the stipulated period of six months and for the first time, application was filed by him on 10th March, 2016 which was beyond the period of six months in terms of Rule 7(a)(vi) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014 and his BMI was more than 30 and that being the factual matrix, the Tribunal was of the view that it may not be possible to come to th
