BSF Can't Deny DIG Rank To Officer Injured In 1995 Road Accident Despite Granting Earlier Promotions: Calcutta High Court
Representative image | PTI
The Calcutta High Court has held that the Border Security Force (BSF) cannot deny promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) to an officer solely on the ground of his medical category, particularly when the same medical condition did not prevent his promotion to higher ranks on three earlier occasions after the injury.
Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra directed the BSF to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within eight weeks to reconsider the petitioner's promotion by granting him the relaxation available under the applicable regulations. The Court further directed that, if found eligible, the officer's promotion would take effect retrospectively from December 29, 2023, with notional seniority and pay fixation, while actual salary would accrue from the date he assumes charge.
"The petitioner has had an impeccable career without any taint on his record," the Court observed, adding that the authorities had failed to explain why the very same medical condition, which was overlooked during earlier promotions, suddenly became a disqualification for promotion to the rank of DIG.
The petitioner, Amardeep Singh Johal, joined the BSF as an Assistant Commandant in 1993. In 1995, while returning from leave to his posting in Jammu, he met with a serious road accident that resulted in his medical category being downgraded to S1 H1 A2 (L) P1 E1. Despite this, he continued serving in difficult operational areas, including Jammu & Kashmir and Naxalite-affected regions, and was successively promoted to the ranks of Deputy Commandant, Second-in-Command and Commandant.
However, when considered for promotion to the rank of DIG, the DPC deferred his promotion on the ground that he did not possess the requisite SHAPE-I medical category. Although the BSF kept a vacancy reserved for him, it did not disclose any reasons for deferring his promotion.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the authorities had consistently found him fit for promotion despite his medical condition and had allowed him to discharge command responsibilities in difficult operational areas for nearly three decades. He further contended that the injury had been recognised as being "attributable to bona fide government duty" and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of relaxation available under the relevant medical regulations. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court's decisions in Venkatesh v. Union of India and Jagmohan Chaudhary v. Union of India.
The Union of India argued that the petitioner was not entitled to relaxation under Clause 4.14(b) of the Instructions for Medical Examination and Classification of Personnel Serving in the Central Paramilitary Forces because the accident had occurred while he was returning from leave and not during "active government duty." It was submitted that earlier promotions could not bind subsequent DPCs.
Rejecting the BSF's stand, the High Court noted that the petitioner's medical condition had remained unchanged since the 1995 accident and yet it had never prevented him from performing his duties or earning successive promotions.
The Court found it significant that the petitioner had served in some of the most challenging operational areas without any adverse remarks regarding his performance or physical capability.
"It would be safe to assume that the petitioner is medically conditioned to lead the forces in whatever areas he has been posted, including hard areas," the Court observed.
The Court further held that the DPC had failed to disclose any reasons explaining why the petitioner's medical condition was considered acceptable for promotion up to the rank of Commandant but became a barrier for promotion as DIG.
"There is no deliberation on record to show that the post of DIG requires any enhanced requirements which a person in the rank of Commandant is not required to have," the Court said.
Justice Mitra also found fault with the decision-making process adopted by the DPC, observing that it merely deferred the petitioner's promotion without communicating any reasons.
"The consideration of the DPC is bald and uncertain and disclosed no reasons as to why the application of the petitioner was deferred," the Court held.
Referring to the Delhi High Court's judgments interpreting the expression "active duty," the Court observed that even if the petitioner's injury was treated as attributable to "bona fide government duty" rather than "active government duty," the authorities had failed to justify why relaxation under the applicable regulations was denied despite his long and distinguished service.
Holding that the petitioner had an unblemished service record spanning over 33 years and that the medical downgrade had never previously hindered his career progression, the Court directed the Review DPC to reconsider his case by extending the appropriate relaxation under Regulation 4.14(b), subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions.
Case: Amardeep Singh Johal v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 14474 of 2025.