Termination due to medical unfitness requires adherence to due process, including a proper medical assessment, and cannot unjustly discriminate against similarly situated individuals.

ORDER

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the award of sentence under Rule 29 of Sahastra Seema Bal, 2007 dated 13th April, 2021 issued by Dy. Inspector General of Sahastra Seema Bal. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to stay the order of termination with immediate effect and to allow the Petitioner to continue with their employment till the outcome of the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) on 31st December, 2014 in Sahastra Seema Bal. He states that the Petitioner could not complete his Basic Recruit Training Course (BRTC) within two years and two chances as mentioned in the offer letter, on account of his suffering from kidney stones during the training course.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the Regulation Policy of BRTC, a medical board should have been constituted by the Competent Authority in order to assess the injury to the petitioner during the training prior to the termination order being passed. However, according to him, in the present case, no Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner was terminated without following due process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner is similarly situated as the Petitioner in WPC 9287/2020, Bhagirath v UOI, which was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 01st March 2021, along with other connected writ petitions. He states that the Court directed in the aforesaid writ petition that if termination orders are passed in pursuance to the show cause notices impugned in the batch of petitions, a two week period of stay would be available to the Petitioners to file their statutory appeal. He states that an order of `Termination of Service' was passed against the Petitioner on 03rd April, 2021 and that the Petitioner preferred an appeal against it as per Rule 29 of SSB Rules, 2009, on the same day. He states vide the impugned order dated 13th April 2021, the sentence awarded to the Petitioner was upheld and his appeal was dismissed.

6. He states that a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the first date of hearing i.e. 16th April, 2021 had directed maintenance of status quo vis-a- vis the petitioner as the two week stay granted by this Court vide order dated 01st March, 2021 in WP(C) 8199/2019 and WP(C) 9287/2020 had not expired.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts inasmuch as the petitioner's writ petition being WP(C) 531/2020 was dismissed by this Court vide a speaking judgement dated 01st March, 2021. The order dated 01st March, 2021 in WP(C) 531/2020 screen shared by the learned counsel for the respondents is reproduced hereinbelow:-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 12363/2019

DINKAR KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Senior panel counsel.

+ W.P. (C) 13700/2019, CM APPL. 55189/2019

AKSHAY DINKAR HIWALE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. K B Upadhyay, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate.

+ W.P. (C) 199/2020

AMOL SHAMRAO KOKARE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate for UOI.

+ W.P. (C) 531/2020, CM APPL. 1409/2020

SURINDER PAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. K B Upadhyay, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA A