$~91

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3616/2021

MR. ABC .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Divya Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Anjali Bansal, Mr. Lovekesh Chauhan, Ms. Kritika Matta, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Mr. Manas Verma, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Mr. Shubham

Bahl and Ms. Bhumica, Advs.

versus

BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr.

Pushpender Pratap Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

% 16.12.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner is a HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus-positive appointee to the post of Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force, “BSF”, hereinafter. He was appointed to

the said post on 17 April 2017.

2. On 6 July 2017, it was found that the petitioner had contracted HIV and was undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy, Signature Not Veri 3 f i“eAdRT”, hereinafter and also had abdominal Kochs. The petitioner underwent ART and Ant-

Tuberculosis Treatment, Signature Not Veri4f i from 28 July 2017 to 31 January 2018 and was thereafter discharged from the hospital.

3. The petitioner was re-examined by a Medical Board on 15 November 2018. Consequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 30 December 2018 was issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice noted the fact that the petitioner was suffering from immune compromised status and was on ART and, therefore, opined that he was permanently unfit for recruitment to the BSF, as he had been placed in medical category S1H1A1P2(T-24+24)E1. The show cause notice, therefore, proposed to retire the petitioner from service and called upon him to show cause thereagainst.

4. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice.

5. However, by order dated 9 April 2019, the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground that he was physically unfit.

6. An appeal preferred against the said decision was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 9 October 2020.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying that the order dated 9 April 2019, whereby the petitioner was discharged from service, and the order dated 9 October 2020, whereby the appeal against the said decision was dismissed, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.

“ e A d TT”, hereinafter

8. We have heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shubhra Parashar, learned SPC for the respondents. 9. Ms. Parashar submits that, as the petitioner had been discharged from service in accordance with the applicable provisions, as he was found medically unfit to continue with the BSF, even while he was on training, no case for interference exists.

10. The petitioner has placed reliance on Section 3(a)(i) and (ii) read with the proviso to Section 3, 3. Prohibition of discrimination. of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, Signature Not Veri 6 f i“etdhe HIV Act”, hereinafter

11. Mr. Aggarwal submits that there has been no compliance with Section 3(a) of the HIV Act and, in these circumstances, the presumption would be that the petitioner did not pose any significant risk if he was permitted to continue to discharge his duties. Mr.

No person shall discriminate against the protected person on any ground including any of the following, namely—

(a) the denial of, or termination from, employment or occupation, unless, in the case of termination, the person, who is otherwise qualified, is furnished with— (i) a copy of the written assessment of a qualified and independent healthcare provider competent to do so that such protected person poses a significant-risk of transmission of HIV to other person in the workplace, or is unfit to perform the duties of the job; and (ii) a copy of a written statement by the employer stating the nature and extent of administrative or financial hardship for not