GURDYAL BHARWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP, for short) as constable (GD) on 25.9.1972. On 28.6.82 he was promoted as Head Constable (Radio Operator). In February, 1988, the petitioner was referred to Army Hospital on account of hearing problem in his ears. There he was put in medical category CEE and was fitted with hearing aids. On 17th October, 1990 the petitioner was empannelled on D list - nd thus in the promotion panel to the rank of sub inspector (RO). However, he was not given promotion and was continued to be retained in his existing rank and job. He represented against his supersession in view of his juniors having been promoted. On 15.,4.93 his name was directed to be deleted from the D-list in view of his having been retained in medical category BEE (P) for the preceding two years. On 26.5.93, the present petition has been filed seeking restoration of the petitioner's name in the select list-D and for quashing the order deleting the name. of the petitioner from that list. Relief of promotion from a back date with effect from which his juniors were promoted has also been sought for.

(2.) According to the respondent, the petitioner is Head constable ( Radio Operator) in ITBP. The force is charged with the duty of protection and security of northern mountain borders of the country. The duties to be discharged by the force are highly sensitive. For this reason, only such persons of the force as are in medical category AYE are considered for promotion to the higher post. Though the petitioner was brought on approved list 'D' (the list meant for promotion from Head constable to sub inspector) on 20.1.1990 but he could not be promoted as he was in low medical category i.e. CEE (temporary). The petitioner has been a wireless operator. His hearing impairness affects his proficiency in receiving messages and even a minor error in receiving the message may cause disaster not only to the force but also to the country. Keeping in view this paramount consideration the departmental instructions have been issued laying down guidelines for promotion which have been consistently followed since 1977. It has been specifically mentioned therein that no person of low medical category shall be promoted to the next higher post. Since the post of sub inspector in ITBP carries higher responsibility, the petitioner has not been promoted as he has failed to satisfy the standards laid down by the said instructions.

(3.) The impugned order dated 15.4.1993 states that the petitioner, in spite of his name having been brought on the list-D, had continued to remain in medical category BEE(P) for a period of over two years and the medical category-having not been upgraded his name was being deleted from the list.