WP(C) 610/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dasgupta, learned CGC. When the matter was taken up on 5.9.2011, the following order was passed. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleadings an d the documents annexed to the writ petition, submits that although the petition er was medically decategorised as Medically Category-3 but so far as his posting is concerned, same will have no effect. In this connection, he has referred to the hard area posting of the petitioner including posting at Leh. When the petit ioner was posted at Leh, a question was raised as to how he could be posted at L eh as he was under Medical Category-3. However, the same has been clarified that medical decategorisation of the petitioner did not have any effect in his posti ng at Leh. In view of the above, it is the submission of Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of the medical condition of the petitioner, there i s no bar for posting him in Bhutan entitling him to BCA. Mr. Dasgupta, learned C GC prays for time till 19.9.2011 enabling him to obtain instruction in the above aspect of the matter. Prayer is allowed. List on 19.9.2011. In the writ petition, towards his claim for Bhutan posting entitling him to BCA, the petitioner has made the following statements. 8. That the petitioner states that as per the existing policy guidelines in the Boarder Roads Organization, individuals categorized in the Low Medical Category are not allotted High Altitude Area/Hard Hard Altitude/Insurgency Hard Area/Har d Area postings (hereinafter referred to as HAA/HHA/EHA/HA), but in case of the petitioner he has been allotted postings in all the abovementioned areas and he successfully carried out the said postings and never complained regarding the sa me as his medical category did not impair his capacity to discharge duties by ev en the least possible means as the trade his is presently employed to does not i ncapacitate the discharge by him his duties owing to the injury sustained by him in the right eye. It is pertinent to mention here that the present place of pos ting of the petitioner is also categorized as Insurgency Hard Area posting. It i s pertinent to mention here that the petitioner inspite of due diligence could n ot procure a copy of the policy guidelines restricting Low Medical Category pers onnel’s posting to HAA/HHA/EHA/HA areas and as such prays before this Hon’ble Co urt to direct the respondent authorities to produce a copy of the said policy gu idelines before this Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication of the matter. 14. & & & & & It is pertinent to mention here that in the year May, 1997 when the peti tioner was posted to 1078 Field Workshop situated at Leh, objections were raised by the said unit with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to serve in t he said area because of being categorized as GREF III Per Medical Category perso nnel. The said objection was dealt with by the office of the Record Officer and it was certified that the petitioner is not unfit to serve in any area. The said communication by the Record Office issued to the 1078 Field Workshop was an int er departmental communication and inspite of due diligence the petitioner could not procure a copy of the said communication and as such the petitioner crave le ave of this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondent authorities to produce the co py of the said communication before this Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication o f the matter. In addition to the above, the petitioner has also referred to the Annexure-3 let ter dated 24.10.2009, by which a request was made for BCA/MCA posting. In the sa id letter, the petitioner indicated his various postings from 1986 to 2008 so as to show that irrespective of LMC, he was given posting at HAA/HHA/EHA. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid stand of the pe titioner has been dealt with in paragraphs 10 and 14, which are reproduced below : 10. That the statements made in paragraph 8 of the above writ petition the depo nent states that the petitioner has been posted as per his profile and as per th e provision contained in record office instructions on posting. As per the Orbat of Border Road Organization stations of units are classified as M-I, M-II, M-II I as per the availability of Medical facilities in the respective station. All t he low Medical category personnel are classified as GREF (I), GREF (II), GREF (I II) as per medical condition. Posting of all the low medical category personnel are made as per posting policy and no injustice has been done on his account by the respondent to the petitioner. 14. That the statement made in paragraph 14 to 20 of the above writ petition the deponent vehemently denied the contention of the petitioner as much as while fr aming the rulings for posting to foreign nations all the details have already be en deliberated upon the Directorate to ensure that only eligible personnel with good physical/mental/discipline profile are selected for such foreign posting. T he petitioner is repeatedly making the same statements in his subject writ with no logic and reasoning and only an endeavor to mislead the Hon’ble Court. The fa ct is that the petitioner is not fulfilling the preliminary qualitative requirem ent for posting to foreign nation as already explained earlier. Neither his case can be considered taking into consideration the over all interest of the organi zation and the image of nation. Further it is submitted that there are hundreds of such personnel who have been placed in low medical category and not considere d for posting to foreign countries. Even 100% medically fit personnel are also n ot being granted/considered for foreign posting due to limited vacancies and the laid down selection conditions. In view of the above, it prayed that the writ h as no logic and reasoning and without any locus standi and deserved to be out ri ghtly rejected. From the above, what is seen is that the respondents have not dealt with the bas ic plea of the petitioner as has been raised in the writ petition. To show casua l nature of response to this proceeding, Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel for the pe titioner has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the co unter affidavit, in which it has been stated that all LMC personnel are classifi ed as GREF-I, II and III as per medical condition. He submits that it is only th e GREF-III, which is categorized as LMC. Thus, according to him, the respondents have not shown any concern to the case of the petitioner and have very casually dealt with the case of the petitioner. As indicated above as well as in his Annexure-3 representation dated 24.10.2009, there is no earthly reason as to why he cannot be given BCA/MCA posting. Accord ing to Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner it is not a matter of catego rizing the petitioner, but the matter is potentiality and capability of the peti tioner to perform his duties at various stations including the hard area posting and BCA/MCA posting. Countering the above argument, Mr. Dasgupta, learned CGC submits that since the petitioner has been categorized in the LMC, he cannot be given foreign posting. He has also referred to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. Considering the matter in its entirety and as noted above as the respondents hav e not dealt with the basic contention raised by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that irrespective of categorizing the petitioner in the LMC, he has been given hard area posting even at Leh, this writ petition is disposed of dire cting the respondents to re-consider/re-examine the case of the petitioner for B CA/MCA posting consistently with the observations made above and taking note of all attending facts and circumstances. Let the entire exercise be carried out by the Deputy General of Police, Boards O rganization in consultation with the Ministry as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.12.2011. Writ petition stands disposed of.