SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
NAVIN CHAWLA, SHALINDER KAUR, JJ.
HOSHIAR SINGH – Petitioner
versus 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents 
W.P.(C) 4736, 13547 of 2023 & CM APPL. 29170 of 2024 
Decided on : 28-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Abhay Kr.Bhargava, Mr.Satyarth Sinha, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC with Mr. M. N. Mishra, Mr. Manoj Kr. Gautam and Mr. Harshit Batra, Advs.

Denial of promotion based on HIV status violates the HIV Act and constitutional rights, necessitating reconsideration of promotion eligibility for affected personnel.

Headnote:

(A) Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 - Section 3 - Promotion and employment of personnel in security forces - Petitioners denied promotion and appointment due to HIV status - Court emphasizes non-discrimination based on HIV status, stating that denial of promotion violates the HIV Act and constitutional rights. (Paras 30, 41, 61)

(B) Employment rights - Denial of promotion based solely on HIV status is discriminatory and contravenes the principles of equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 41, 61)

(C) Medical categorization - The court rules that personnel classified as P2 due to HIV are fit for duties, except in isolated locations, and cannot be denied promotion solely based on medical categorization without evidence of inability to perform duties. (Paras 46, 61)

(D) Review of decisions - The court mandates a reconsideration of the petitioners' promotion eligibility by a Review DPC within specified timelines. (Paras 50, 61)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, members of the Border Security Force and Central Reserve Police Force, challenged the denial of promotions and appointments based on their HIV-positive status. They argued that this decision violated their rights under the HIV Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the denial of promotion based on HIV status constituted discrimination and ordered a review of the petitioners' cases for promotion.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of denying promotions based on HIV status and the interpretation of medical categorization for promotion eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the HIV Act protects against discrimination in employment, and medical categorization should not preclude promotion unless there is a clear inability to perform duties.

Result: The petitions are disposed of with directions for reconsideration of promotions.

JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, challenging the Impugned Orders by which the petitioners, as far as the W.P.(C) 4736/2023 and W.P.(C) 13547/2023 are concerned, have been denied promotion, while in W.P.(C) 4556/2023, the petitioner‟s appointment has not been confirmed and has been cancelled.

2. Since all the three petitions are based on common submissions by the learned counsels for the parties, and raise similar questions of law, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. In W.P.(C) 4556/2023, however, certain additional issues also arise, which shall be dealt with separately in this judgment.

W.P.(C) 4736/2023

4. As far as W.P.(C) 4736/2023 is concerned, the brief background of facts in which the present petition arises is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force ("BSF") as a Constable (RO) on 28.08.1989. He underwent Basic Training at STC BSF Jodhpur (Rajasthan) with effect from 03.10.1989 to 23.12.1989, however, he failed to clear the ORL Grade-III Course and was subsequently remustered/appointed in the Communication Setup with effect from 19.10.1990. After passing the ORL Grade-III Course (Serial No.03) with a "C" grading from STS BSF Bangalore, he was remustered as NK (RO) with effect from 16.08.1991. The rank of NK (RO) was later merged with the rank of HC (RO) with effect from 10.10.1997. The petitioner also qualified the following essential career courses while being in the SHAPE-I Medical Category: -

Srl.No.Name of courseGradingYear
1.ORL Gde-III Course Srl. No.03"C" grading1991
2.ORL Gde-II Srl No.210 with"CZ" grading2005
3.Map Reading Std 1st"Pass"2004

5. The petitioner was also granted the following financial upgradations in the higher pay grade admissible to him under the ACP and the MACP Schemes: -

(i) 1st Financial up gradation under ACP Scheme w.e.f. 27.03.2005 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/- i.e. pay of ASI (RO).

(ii) 2nd Financial up gradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 16.08.2011 in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- plus Grade pay Rs.4200/- i.e. pay of SI(RO).

(iii) 3rd Financial up gradation under MACP Scheme w.e.f. 16.08.2021 in the Pay Matrix Level -7 i.e. Pay Level of INSPR (RO).

6. The petitioner, while being posted at the SHQ BSF Cooch Behar, was referred to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, where he was diagnosed with “Mediastinal Tuberculosis with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") and oral candidiasis” and was advised to continue Antiretroviral Therapy ("ART") and regular follow-ups. On 05.02.2007 and 06.02.2007, the petitioner‟s sputum sample for the Acid Fast Bacillus ("AFB") test was found to be negative for three consecutive samples. He remained under regular review at the ART Centre at his respective place of posting and had no complaints of fever, diarrhoea, oral candidiasis or loss of weight. However, on 01.04.2016, during a routine investigation by the Medical Board, the Fasting Blood Sugar ("FBS") of the petitioner was found to be 136 mg/dI, and he was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus ("DM") Type-II. The HbA1C test was conducted on 05.08.2021, and recorded a result of 5.5%, with no symptoms of diminished vision or other organ damage.

7. The petitioner was initially placed by the Chief Medical Officer, Ftr HQ BSF Hospital, Kadamtala under a Temporary Low Medical Category of S1H1A1P3(T-48) E1, with effect from 21.12.2005, as a case of suffering from “Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection” (in short, "HIV"). During the Review Medical Board, the petitioner was placed under a Permanent Low Medical category of S1H1A1P3(P)E1 with effect from 26.04.2007 for a period of 96 weeks. The petitioner was again categorized as S1H1A1P3(P) E1 with effect from 25.03.2010 for another 96 weeks as a case of “Retroviral Disease”. In the next Review Medical Board, the petitioner was placed under a temporary Low Medical category of S1H1A1P2(T-48)E1 for a period of 48 weeks. He was later placed under permanent Low Medical Category of SIH1A1P2E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top