{"id":310059,"date":"2023-12-25T12:00:16","date_gmt":"2023-12-25T06:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310059"},"modified":"2024-01-03T18:09:20","modified_gmt":"2024-01-03T12:39:20","slug":"cal-hc-dismisses-petition-due-to-lack-of-relief-entitlement-under-border-security-force-act-1968-and-rules-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/25\/cal-hc-dismisses-petition-due-to-lack-of-relief-entitlement-under-border-security-force-act-1968-and-rules-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Provisional selection of candidate and lack of formal enrolment exclude the applicability of Border Security Force Act, 1968; Calcutta High Court dismisses petition"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In a petition challenging an order by the Inspector General, STC BSF Churachandpur, declaring petitioner’s fitness as unsatisfactory after a “Review Medical Board”, a single-judge bench comprising of Rajarshi Bharadwaj,* J.<\/span>, held that the dismissal is based on the petitioner’s lack of physical fitness for paramilitary duties, as established by the Medical Board’s findings. The Court further held that the petitioner’s provisional selection and lack of formal enrolment exclude the applicability of Border Security Force Act, 1968<\/a> and Border Security Force Rules, 1969.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioner, after successfully completing all stages of the recruitment process for the post of constable, was provisionally selected on 08-03-2021, with an appointment letter issued based on a conclusive satisfaction regarding medical fitness. The petitioner joined duty at STC BSF Churachandpur on 02-04-2021, following a medical examination conducted by the Recruitment Medical Board, the findings of which were valid until June-July, 2021.<\/p>\n

Subsequent to a directive, the petitioner underwent a formal medical examination, resulting in a declaration of medical unfitness on 18-04-2021. However, a subsequent review by an Orthopedic Surgeon on 20-05-2021, declared the petitioner fit for active service. Despite being declared fit, the petitioner received a notice dated 02-06-2021, stating that he was deemed medically unfit by a “Review Medical Board”, and the petitioner’s name appeared on the list of candidates declared unfit.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the order dated 02-06-2021 by the Inspector General, STC BSF Churachandpur declaring the petitioner’s fitness status as unsatisfactory, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition challenging the same.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the order dated 02-06-2021, declaring the petitioner medically unfit is legally valid?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the procedures outlined in the Border Security Force Act, 1968<\/a> and Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, were adhered to?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the petitioner, being provisionally selected, is entitled to the protections afforded by the mentioned rules?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties’ Contentions<\/p>\n

    The petitioner contended the violation of stipulations in the Border Security Force Act, 1968<\/a> and Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. It was contended that there was denial of natural justice as the conclusions of the Medical Boards were not furnished to the petitioner. It was contended that respondent failed to permit the petitioner to resume duty during the pendency of his representation. It was contended that the “Review Medical Board” was improperly constituted without the issuance of a retirement order.<\/p>\n

    The respondent contended that the petitioner was provisionally selected and not formally enrolled in BSF, making him ineligible for the protections under the mentioned rules. It was contended that the recruitment medical evaluation remains valid for one year; the petitioner’s subsequent medical examinations confirmed his unfitness for service. The respondent asserted the necessity of a fit constabulary for the operational success of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).<\/p>\n

    Key Legal Provisions<\/p>\n