Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. K. RAJASHEKHARA REDDY AND ANOTHER

of this Court, the re-medical examination of the respondent-applicant has been conducted by the medical Board of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi on 12th May, 2022 and the medical report along with the enclosure dated 12th May, 2022 has been furnished to this Court where he has been found to be medically fit for all services. 17. The provision manifests that in case of a candidate who is declared temporarily unfit, the re-medical fitness certificate in terms of the provision has to be furnished within six months from the date on which the candidate was declared to be temporarily unfit. 18. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules 2014, which states as under:- In case of candidate who is to be declared Temporary Unfit, the period specified for re-examination should not ordinarily exceed six months at the maximum. On re-examination after the specified period these candidates should not be declared temporarily unfit for a further period but a final decision in regard to their fitness for appointment or otherwise should be given. 19. Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules 2014 clearly indicates that such of the candidates who are declared temporarily unfit, the period specified for re-medical examination is ordinarily six months at the maximum from the date of uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department. No communication by the Department regarding findings of the Department is communicated individually and uploading takes place only by the Medical Board. 20. Indisputedly, in the present case, the medical examination report was published on 17th June, 2015 indicating the respondent-applicant to be temporarily unfit and this is an admitted fact that the respondent-applicant approached for re-medical examination for the first time on 10th March, 2016, i.e., after six months of the medical examination report uploaded on 17th June 2015. The details regarding the number of such candidates for CSE-2014 to CSE-2020 who are declared medically unfit has also been provided to this Court. It may be noticed that in CSE-2014, there were 10 candidates including the respondent-applicant, declared temporarily unfit and in overall table for CSE-2014 to CSE-2020 indicates that there are 25 candidates who are declared temporarily unfit failed to submit an application within a stipulated time of six months after being declared as temporarily unfit and have not been allocated to any services in terms of the scheme of Rules of which a reference is made. The details regarding number of such candidates for CSE-2014 to CSE-2020 are as under:- Sl. No. CSE Year Number of candidates who were not allocated to any Service as they failed to submit medical fitness against temporarily unfit status within the prescribed limit 1. CSE-2014 10 2. CSE-2015 01 3. CSE-2016 07 4. CSE-2017 00 5. CSE-2018 01 6. CSE-2019 02 7. CSE-2020 04 21. We are also of the view that the period of six months which has been stipulated under Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix III of CSE Rules, 2014 of which reference has been made, the word ordinarily has to be conjointly read with the word maximum during which the candidate has to approach for re-medical examination from the date of uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department which indicates an outer limit of six months during which it is open to the candidate to approach for re-medical examination after being declared temporarily unfit from the date of the uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department and the fate of medical fitness is not dependent upon the result of the selection process held by the Commission. 22. At the same time, there may be a situation as being projected by the appellant to this Court that in special cases where a pregnant lady may not be in a position and is unable to complete her medical examination within a period of six months, in the peculiar circumstances, the word ordinarily may be considered for relaxation to a limited extent but the kind of excuse which has been projected by the respondent-applicant that though he was found to be temporarily unfit but the consolidated reserve list was published on 19th January, 2016 where his name was placed at Sl. No. 16 and allotment to Group A services was published on 9th March, 2016, he immediately filed an application on 10th March, 2016, without loss of time, which was within the prescribed period of six months from the date of publication of the reserve list, in our considered view, is neither a valid justification nor is in conformity with the scheme of Rules of which a reference has been made. 23. In our considered view, the word ordinarily in isolation as interpreted by the High Court without taking recourse to the word maximum as referred, is not sustainable in law. 24. It is true that the case of the respondent-applicant on legal foundation is not sustainable but we are constrained to observe that it was the fifth and last attempt of the respondent-applicant during which he appeared in CSE, 2014 and it is not disputed that before the year 2014, examinations which were conducted by the appellant, medical report was always made available to the individual candidate and it is only for the first time in the year 2014, this clause was inserted where the medical reports are being uploaded on the website of the Department which was considered to be the notice to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process which might have created some confusion with the respondent-applicant and once his name found place in the consolidated reserve list in January 2016, he made a representation on 10th March, 2016 along with his medical fitness certificate, and after the orders of this Court, the respondent- applicant has again been sent for re-medical examination and has been found medically fit for all services as it reveals from the medical report dated 12th May, 2022.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. The provision manifests that in case of a candidate who is declared temporarily unfit, the re-medical fitness certificate in terms of the provision has to be furnished within six months from the date on which the candidate was declared to be temporarily unfit.20. Indisputedly, in the present case, the medical examination report was published on 17th June, 2015 indicating the respondent-applicant to be temporarily unfit and this is an admitted fact that the respondent-applicant approached for re-medical examination for the first time on 10th March, 2016, i.e., after six months of the medical examination report uploaded on 17th June 2015. The details regarding the number of such candidates for CSE-2014 to CSE-2020 who are declared medically unfit has also been provided to this Court. It may be noticed that in CSE-2014, there were 10 candidates including the respondent-applicant, declared temporarily unfit and in overall table for CSE-2014 to CSE-2020 indicates that there are 25 candidates who are declared temporarily unfit failed to submit an application within a stipulated time of six months after being declared as temporarily unfit and have not been allocated to any services in terms of the scheme of Rules of which a reference is made.21. We are also of the view that the period of six months which has been stipulated under Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix III of CSE Rules, 2014 of which reference has been made, the word ordinarily has to be conjointly read with the word maximum during which the candidate has to approach for re-medical examination from the date of uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department which indicates an outer limit of six months during which it is open to the candidate to approach for re-medical examination after being declared temporarily unfit from the date of the uploading of the medical examination report on the website of the Department and the fate of medical fitness is not dependent upon the result of the selection process held by the Commission.22. At the same time, there may be a situation as being projected by the appellant to this Court that in special cases where a pregnant lady may not be in a position and is unable to complete her medical examination within a period of six months, in the peculiar circumstances, the word ordinarily may be considered for relaxation to a limited extent but the kind of excuse which has been projected by the respondent-applicant that though he was found to be temporarily unfit but the consolidated reserve list was published on 19th January, 2016 where his name was placed at Sl. No. 16 and allotment to Group A services was published on 9th March, 2016, he immediately filed an application on 10th March, 2016, without loss of time, which was within the prescribed period of six months from the date of publication of the reserve list, in our considered view, is neither a valid justification nor is in conformity with the scheme of Rules of which a reference has been made.23. In our considered view, the word ordinarily in isolation as interpreted by the High Court without taking recourse to the word maximum as referred, is not sustainable in law.24. It is true that the case of the respondent-applicant on legal foundation is not sustainable but we are constrained to observe that it was the fifth and last attempt of the respondent-applicant during which he appeared in CSE, 2014 and it is not disputed that before the year 2014, examinations which were conducted by the appellant, medical report was always made available to the individual candidate and it is only for the first time in the year 2014, this clause was inserted where the medical reports are being uploaded on the website of the Department which was considered to be the notice to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process which might have created some confusion with the respondent-applicant and once his name found place in the consolidated reserve list in January 2016, he made a representation on 10th March, 2016 along with his medical fitness certificate, and after the orders of this Court, the respondent- applicant has again been sent for re-medical examination and has been found medically fit for all services as it reveals from the medical report dated 12th May, 2022.