The interpretation of 'active duty' and the recognition of E2 medical category for relaxation in SHAPE-I medical category under Clause 4.17(b)(iv) of the Standing Order 04/2008.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. - By the instant petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-

'(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any such order by quashing the impugned order dated 02.10.2020 as passed by the Respondent No. 2 to 4;

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any such order by directing the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to grant the Promotion to the Petitioner of Assistant Sub Inspector post from the date when his batchmates and similarly placed personnel have been promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector by granting the relaxation to the Petitioner in terms clause 4.17 (b) (iv) of Standing order 04/2008 dated 15.12.2008 and in terms of judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 in the matter titled as Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 11263/2015 as passed by this Hon'bIe Court.'

2. As per the case of petitioner, he joined CRPF as constable/GD on 15.07.1991 and while undergoing training at RTC Neemuch, the petitioner participated in a hockey tournament organized by the respondent. Unfortunately, while playing in the said tournament he sustained injuries on his left eye by a stick on 23.05.1992. After being treated at CRPF Hospital, Neemuch and Base Hospital, Hyderabad, the petitioner completed remainder of his 36 weeks training at RTC Neemuch. Meanwhile in a Court of Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the injury sustained by the petitioner occurred during the course of play and neither anybody could be held responsible for the lapse nor could be blamed. Upon completion of training, the petitioner was declared fit for duty and was given post at 33 Bn. CRPF in February 1993 and where he actively discharged his duties and also participated in various tournaments. The petitioner then qualified for the Section Commander Course at S. No. 28 at Lucknow in the year 2003 and upon promotion as Head Constable on 01.06.2010 was transferred to 215 Bn.

3. Thereafter, even though the petitioner?s name was reflected in order No. P.VII-1/2019-117-EC-I dated 30.10.2019, whereby the respondents declared the list of candidates promoted from the post of Head Constable/GD to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, he was not released by the respondents since he was declared SHAPE-II (E2) medical category in the Annual Medical Evaluation on 24.04.2019 due to injury sustained on his left eye and since a candidate had to be SHAPE-I medical category for promotion. Strangely, this was despite the fact that the petitioner was performing all his regular duties.

4. Having come to know of the above, the petitioner requested the respondents to release his promotion for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector as the SHAPE-II medical category was due to injury sustained on the left eye on 23.05.1992 during training while he was on "active duty?. In response, vide order dated 02.10.2020, which is under challenge before this Court by way of the instant petition, the respondents denied him relaxation for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on the ground that the petitioner sustained the injury by a hockey stick on 23.05.1992 and as the SHAPE-I medical category is mandatory for promotion and further as the relaxation could only be granted to those who had been injured/wounded during war or while fighting against the enemy/militant/intruders/armed hostiles or insurgents etc.

5. The aforesaid led to filing of the present petition before this Court wherein the petitioner has raised various grounds and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, firstly that the action of the respondents is illegal and is against Clause 4.17(b)(iv) of the Standing Order 04/2008 dated 15.12.2008 issued by the respondents and secondly that the petitioner sustained the injury on his left eye while playing a match during the hockey tournament organized by the respondents when he was on "active duty? and thirdly that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement in the case of Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12909