M.M. Kumar, CJ. 1. The core question raised in the instant appeal by the writ petitioner-appellant pertains to his medical fitness for promotion from the post of Deputy Inspector General of CRPF to the higher rank of Inspector General of CRPF. It has remained undisputed that for earning promotion to the post of Inspector General, CRPF, Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Director General, CRPF is applicable. The learned Writ Court has discussed in detail these Instructions and guidelines which are enumerated under four broad headings. Part-I deals with Policy of Medical Examination and Classification; part-II contains Instructions and Procedure for Medical Classification; Part-III deals with Disposal of various Medical Board Proceedings; and Part-IV deals with Broad Technical Guidelines for Medical Officers. For the purpose of disposing of the instant appeal, Clauses 4.13 and 4.15 are relevant. According to Clause 4.13 it is mandatory to earn promotion as Inspector General of Police, CRPF that the Officer should have maintained the Medical Category SHAPE-I. The aforesaid clause is set out below in extenso: "Medical Category SHAPE-I will be an essential condition for promotion of all combatised personnel in all groups/ranks/cadres in the CPMFs. In case of those whose illness is of permanent nature and who are not SHAPE-I, they will be considered for promotion by DPOC but will be declared unfit for promotion, even if they are otherwise fit for promotion. In case of those personnel, whose illness is of temporary nature, after considering their cases for promotion alongwith others, if they are otherwise fit, the DPC will grade them as `fit for promotion' subject to attaining SHAPE-I medical category. As and when they regain the SHAPE-I medical category, they will be promoted as per recommendations of DPC. But they will not be entitled to back wages. However, they will retain their seniority." 2. It is further appropriate to mention that under Clause 4.15, Officers put in lower Medical Classification by the Medical/ Board Review Medical Board of SIHIA2PE1 and S1H1A1P2E1K, were to be re-assessed by a Board consisting of the Home Secretary as its Chairman, DG of the concerned Force, ADG (Medial), MHA and a specialist nominated by DGHS as members. This applies to a candidate who is otherwise found fit for promotion. This applies to a candidate who is otherwise found fit for promotion. The Board is required to assess the suitability of the Officer belonging to the aforesaid medical category by taking into consideration the following parameters: "a. The officer is capable of performing the normal duties of the rank to which he is being promoted. b. Any defect, disability or discomfort which the officer is suffering from is not likely to be aggravated by the service conditions. c. The officers, assessed fit for promotion by the Board will be promoted to the next higher rank as per the recommendations of the DPC. d. The Board's assessment will be final." 3. The respondents in their written statement filed before the Writ Court produced information in a tabulated form revealing the medical category of the appellant-writ petitioner which is set out below in extenso: Sl. No. Details of Medical Board Date Result 1. Annual Medical Examination (AME) 22.06.2011 SlHlAlP2El(T-24) (Unfit for promotion) 2. Annual Medical Examination (AME) 04.01.2012 SlHlAlP3El(T-12) (Unfit for promotion) 3. On the request of the petitioner, a Review Medical Board excluding the doctors who were there in the Annual Medical Examination (AME) dated 04.01.2012 was constituted by Director (Med), CRPF 16.06.2012 SHAPE-2(T-24) (Unfit for promotion) 4. Petitioner requested to get his medical examination done by a neutral medical board outside CRPF. ADG (Med) constituted a medical board of Medical Officers(MOs) outside CRPF. This was a special dispensation given to the petitioner as there is no provision for a second review. 13.07.2012. SHAPE-2 (Permanent) (Permanently unfit for promotion) 5. Medical Board head by Union Hone Secretary, DG CRPF, ADG (Med) and the Specialist nominated by DGHS (Dr. H.S. Isser, Sr. Cardiologist, Safdar Jung Hospital) 26.07.2012. Considered the petitioner not fit for promotion. 6. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital 27.08.2012 and 31.08.2012 SlHlAlPl(0024)El. Without getting the report examined by ADG (Med), MHA wrongly considered this to signify that the officer was medically fit as per SHAPE requirement. 7. A Medical Board constituted in AIIMS 04.01.2013. The petitioner did not turn up for the medical examination. 8. A Medical Board chaired by ADM (Med) with IGs of Medical of other Forces was constituted to scrutinize the report of RML Hospital and all the relevant medical papers of the officer. Feb, 2013 SHAPE-II (permanent) (presently unfit for promotion) 9. 7. A Medical Board constituted in AIIMS 04.01.2013. The petitioner did not turn up for the medical examination. 8. A Medical Board chaired by ADM (Med) with IGs of Medical of other Forces was constituted to scrutinize the report of RML Hospital and all the relevant medical papers of the officer. Feb, 2013 SHAPE-II (permanent) (presently unfit for promotion) 9. Medical Board headed by Union Home Secretary (same as mentioned at S. No. 5 above for examination of the report of Dr RML Hospital (as at S. no. 6 above) 13.03.2013 Observed that the petitioner was taken to be fit without getting the report of Dr. RML Hospital examined by ADG (Med). The Board examined the various report of the medical parameters of the petitioner and found him as SHAPE-2 Permanent- thus is permanently unfit for the promotion MHA instructed CRPF on 03.04.2013 that the release of promotion (from DIG to IG) dated 10.09.2012 of the petitioner `Stand Withdrawn). 4. The learned Writ Court took into consideration various factors and recorded the conclusion. It also noticed the contention of the petitioner-appellant that his Medical Category evaluated in the Annual Medical Examination of 20.06.2011 was tampered with by the concerned Doctor. On the aforesaid issue, the learned Writ Court concluded that the matter relating to the corrections and over-writing on the aforesaid Medical Report was pending in criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, Saket Court, New Delhi on a complaint filed by the petitioner-appellant and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and it was not considered proper to make any comment about the conduct of the petitioner-appellant. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to opine in paras 39 and 40 as under: "39. However, on a further reading of the aforesaid document annexure `k', it revealed that the petitioner, not satisfied with the examination conducted on 22.06.2011, preferred an appeal before DG, CRPF and a fresh Board was constituted and he was examined on 04.01.2012 by the fresh Board of three other Doctors. This Board, as indicated above, placed him in medical category P-3. The petitioner again made a representation asking for a fresh Medical Board. His request was acceded to and the fresh Board examined him on 16.06.2012 and placed him in SHAPE-2. The petitioner submitted yet another representation for re-examination. The re-examination was conducted on 13.07.2012 by a team of independent neutral Doctors and countersigned by ADG (Medical). The petitioner again made a representation asking for a fresh Medical Board. His request was acceded to and the fresh Board examined him on 16.06.2012 and placed him in SHAPE-2. The petitioner submitted yet another representation for re-examination. The re-examination was conducted on 13.07.2012 by a team of independent neutral Doctors and countersigned by ADG (Medical). This Board placed the petitioner in P-2 medical category. 40. The aforesaid note further reveals that in a meeting held by the Home Secretary, Dr. H. S. Isser, Senior Cardiologist, Safdarjung Hospital, opined that the petitioner was a long standing hypertensive and diabetic on medical treatment. His fundus examination showed sinus tachycardia and echocardiography shed mild concentric LVH with Grade I Diastolic dysfunction and he also had target organ involvement which was also likely to be progressive." 5. The learned Writ Court also examined the report given by RML Hospital, New Delhi which constituted the basis of promotion Order dated 10.09.2012 and culminated in posting of appellant-writ petitioner as Inspector General (Operations), Kashmir. He assumed his duties as such on 28.09.2012. The learned Writ Court has opined that RML Hospital has placed him in S1H1A1P1 (0-24) E1 medical category. The report was submitted directly to the concerned Ministry in the Home Department which recorded the category given by RML Hospital as SHAPE-I and ordered release of his promotion order. As a matter of fact under the provisions of Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 the Medical Report of RML Hospital was required to be submitted to the Approving and Perusing Authority because Clause 4.7 of the Standing Order provided that the Hospital Authorities were refrained from communicating the medical classification/grading awarded to an individual to him/her until the report / Board Proceeding is approved by the competent Medical Authority. The aforesaid procedure has been provided in order to obviate the unfamiliarity of the Doctors working in civil hospitals with the health norms and shape norms of CRPF. The test report of the Doctors of RML Hospital was required to be scrutinized by the Board before finalizing the SHAPE Category of the petitioner-appellant. The aforesaid view of the learned Writ Court is supported by the Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 which has been quoted in para 41 of the judgment and the same is set out below in extenso: 41. The aforesaid view of the learned Writ Court is supported by the Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 which has been quoted in para 41 of the judgment and the same is set out below in extenso: 41. It is true that in-between, on a representation made by the petitioner to the Home Secretary, it was decided to have the medical examination of the petitioner done at RML Hospital. The said Hospital categorized the petitioner in medical category SHAP1(0-24)E1. This report is stated to have directly been submitted to the concerned Police Division in the Home Department who took it as SHAPE-1 and ordered release of promotion of the petitioner. In terms of the provisions of Standing Order No. 04/2008, as quoted hereinabove, the Board papers were required to be submitted to the approving and perusing authority. Clause 4.7 further provides that the hospital authorities shall not immediately communicate the medical classification grading awarded to the individual to him / her until the report / board proceeding is approved by the competent medical authority. It is submitted by the respondents that the Doctors of civil hospital are not familiar with the health norms and SHAPE norms of the CAPFs. The test reports of Dr. RML Hospital had to be scrutinized by a competent authority/Board before deciding on SHAPE categorization of the petitioner. The submission is fortified by the relevant provision of the Standing Order no. 04/2008, which is extracted hereunder: "In case of newly detected cases of Impaired Glucose Tolerance, the individual should be placed in category P2(T-12) if his parameters are of P2. If there is no CV risk factor or any target organ involvement, the individual is placed in P-1. If the Parameters fall in the category of P1, then he be labeled as P1(O-24) and then deal with as given above for further categorization." It needs a mention here that the petitioner was not a newly detected case of impaired glucose tolerance. Notwithstanding that, P1 category, as defined under sub-clause (c) of Clause 22.5 under the caption "Diabetes Mellitus" of the Standing Order means personnel having diabetes or impaired Glucose Tolerance under treatment with Diet Control and or oral hypoglycemics within parameters mentioned thereunder. Notwithstanding that, P1 category, as defined under sub-clause (c) of Clause 22.5 under the caption "Diabetes Mellitus" of the Standing Order means personnel having diabetes or impaired Glucose Tolerance under treatment with Diet Control and or oral hypoglycemics within parameters mentioned thereunder. It provides that the given parameters must be maintained for a minimum period of six months with Fasting and 2 hour Post Prandial sugar every six weeks and Glycosylated HbAlc every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1. During this period of 24 weeks observation, the individual shall be kept labeled as P1 (0-24) and finally upgraded as P-1, as the case may be, if he maintains the control consistently. The note prepared and submitted by the Director (Pers) to the Joint Secretary (II) of MHA placed at page 37 of the writ petition reads as under: "Sh S. S. Sandhu, DIG, CRPF Medical Category was reported by the CAPF S1H1A1P2(P)E1, a case of Diabetes (Mellitus Type II with hypertension): His detailed medical examination report submitted by Dr. R.M. L. Hospital is at F/D. The Medical Board has placed in him S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1 medical category. In accordance with para 23.5(c) of the existing Health Care Scheme (page 18/scheme placed below), the term P-1(O-24) refers to Diabetes Mellitus, where certain parameters mentioned in Para 23.5 (c) have to be maintained for a minimum period of six months with fasting and 2 hr Post-Prandial sugar every six weeks and Glycosylated HbA1c every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1." 6. It was on the aforesaid basis that the Directorate was misled to accept the writ petitioner-appellant as SHAPE-I. Rather than an illegality was committed resulting in withdrawal of the promotion order dated 10.09.2012. 7. The argument that the petitioner-appellant could not have been reverted from the rank of Inspector General of Police, CRPF without following procedure laid down by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was rejected by observing that the principles of natural justice should not be attracted in a case where the result of quashing an impugned order would be the restoration of any illegal order. The learned Writ Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajeev Sharma v. State and others, 2008 (1) JKJ 7 [HC]. The learned Writ Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajeev Sharma v. State and others, 2008 (1) JKJ 7 [HC]. The aforesaid view appears to be based on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Gadde Venkatoswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P, AIR 1966 SC 828 , M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 . In the case of Gadde Venkateswara (supra) the Panchayat Samithi in exercise of its statutory powers passed a resolution on 25.08.1960 to locate the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudden. Later on another resolution was passed on 29.05.1961 changing its location. On a representation by the villagers of Dharmajigudden the Government passed orders on 07.03.1962, setting aside the second resolution dated 29.05.1961. As a result the resolution dated 25.08.1960 was restored. Before passing the order dated 07.03.1962 no notice was given to the Panchayat Samithi. Hon'ble the Supreme Court traced the said order of the Government to the statutory provisions and held that notice to the Samithi under that provision was mandatory. Later, upon a review petition having been filed, the Government passed another order on 18.04.1963 cancelling its earlier order dated 07.03.1962. In other words it accepted the shifting of the Primary Health Centre to Lingapalem. The aforesaid order was passed without notice to the villagers of Dharmajigudden. This order was challenged unsuccessfully by the villagers in the High Court. On appeal by the villagers to Hon'ble the Supreme Court it was held that the order of the Government dated 18.04.1963 suffered from two defects. Firstly the Government did not issue any show cause notice to the villagers of Dharmajigudden and there was no power of review with the Government. Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that setting aside of the order dated 18.04.1963 would restore the earlier order dated 07.03.1962 which was also passed without notice to the effected party, the Panchayat Samithi and it would also result into setting aside of a valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that setting aside of the order dated 18.04.1963 would restore the earlier order dated 07.03.1962 which was also passed without notice to the effected party, the Panchayat Samithi and it would also result into setting aside of a valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. Supreme Court refused relief and agreed that the High Court was right in not entertaining the petition under Article 226 even if there was violation of principles of natural justice but proceed to observe as under:- `Both the orders of the Government namely the order dated 07.03.1962 and that of 18.04.1963 were not legally passed; the former because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi and the later because the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review the order made under Section 62 of the Act and also it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudden village........... In those circumstances was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order? If the High Court had quashed the said order it would have restored an illegal order -it would have given the Primary Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court therefore, in our view rightly refused to exercise its extra ordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case." 08. Commenting upon the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta's case has held that the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao is a clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of principles of natural justice. `The Court can, under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretionary power of striking down an order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law.' 09. On the basis of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements Hon'ble the Supreme Court again concluded in the same fashion in the case of Raj Kumar Soni (supra). On the basis of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements Hon'ble the Supreme Court again concluded in the same fashion in the case of Raj Kumar Soni (supra). Therefore, we reiterate the view of the learned Writ Court in refusing to exercise the discretion for withdrawing the order of promotion in respect of the petitioner-appellant. 10. The other ground to reject the submission of the petitioner-appellant finds mention in following paragraphs: "49. The present case is totally distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the petitioner has remained associated with determination of his medical category by successive Medical Boards convened at his requests, details whereof have been given above. It would suffice to say here that he was medically examined on 22.06.2011, 04.01.2012, 16.06.2012, 13.07.2012 and 26.07.2012 by different Medical Boards constituted by the respondents. It hardly needs a reiteration that medical board conducted on 04.01.2012 was constituted pursuant to his appeal against the medical category dated 22.06.2011. The other medical boards were constituted pursuant to his representations dated 16.06.2012, 20.06.2012, 27.06.2012 and 03.08.2012, and he failed to obtain SHAPE-1. 50. The RML Hospital conducted the medical examination of the petitioner on 27.08.2012 and 31.08.2012. They labeled him as S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, i.e., P1(O-24). In terms of the relevant provision of the Standing Order No. 04/2008, as mentioned earlier, a person labeled as P1(O-24) has to maintain the prescribed parameters for a minimum period of 6 months with fasting and 2 hour Post Prandial sugar every 6 weeks and Glycosylated HbAlc every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1. Admittedly, that was not done in case of the petitioner and, instead the aforesaid report of RML Hospital was directly submitted to the concerned Police Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs without the knowledge, perusal and/or approval of Medical authorities of the Force. The concerned Police Division of MHA, under a mistaken belief that S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1 meant medical category SHAPE-1, ordered release of the promotion of the petitioner. 51. In the above factual position, in reality the petitioner has been given repeated and adequate opportunity to demonstrate his medical condition. It is not a case where the medical categorization of the petitioner has been done behind his back. It is also not the case of the petitioner that S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, as recorded by the RML Hospital, meant SHAPE-1 in terms of the provisions of the Standing Order No. 04/2008. It is not a case where the medical categorization of the petitioner has been done behind his back. It is also not the case of the petitioner that S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, as recorded by the RML Hospital, meant SHAPE-1 in terms of the provisions of the Standing Order No. 04/2008. Besides, rectification of the wrong that had crept in has been done within the shortest possible time. Therefore, the judgment cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and not attracted in the instant case. In that case the concerned authorities had initiated a departmental enquiry, framed charge sheet against the petitioner, and reverted him during the pendency of the enquiry on a ground which necessarily warranted an enquiry. In the instant case, even if some sort of explanation would be called from him, he would not improve his medical category merely by spoken or written words. It is a condition to be determined on medical examination and petitioner has had enough opportunities to prove and demonstrate his medical category wherein in he all through failed." 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the learned Writ Court found that the petitioner-appellant did not challenge the determination of Medical Category as SHAPE-2EI (permanent) based on the Medical Report of RML Hospital by the Board which constituted the basis for the decision to withdraw the promotion order dated 10.09.2012. The allegations of malafide were also rightly rejected by the learned Writ Court. 12. When the matter came up for consideration on 13.06.2014 we asked Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-appellant as to whether his client was willing to submit himself for medical examination before the Medical Board of AIIMS on or before 30.06.2014. After obtaining instructions from his client Mr. Jan stated that the appellant-petitioner was willing to submit himself for medical examination and will appear before the Medical Board of AIIMS. Accordingly, we passed the following detailed order: "A pristine question raised in this case is `whether the applicant would fall under SHAPE-I category in accordance with the instructions and guidelines contained in Standing Order no. 04/2008 or he would fall in category lower than SHAPE-I'. There had been conflicting reports as per the order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure K pages 136 and 137). 04/2008 or he would fall in category lower than SHAPE-I'. There had been conflicting reports as per the order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure K pages 136 and 137). Learned Single Judge in Para 57 has observed that the appellant would be free to abide by the directive to undergo the medical examination to be taken by the medical board of AIIMS strictly in terms of the impugned judgment. In the event, his medical category in accordance with the Standing Order no. 04/2008 is found as SHAPE-I, then he would be promoted as Inspector General (IG) retrospectively from the date of such promotion given to him earlier with all consequential benefits. In order to obviate any further complications, the concerned Medical Authorities of CRPF/CAPFs such as Director (Medical) IG (Medical)/ADG (Medical) as may be ordered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, would associate with the AIIMS Medical Board proceedings and submit report to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Mr. Jan, learned senior counsel for the appellant after obtaining instructions from the appellant has stated that the appellant is willing to submit himself for medical examination and would appear before the Medical Board of AIIMS on or before 30.06.2014. The Medical Board may be constituted expeditiously and intimation may be sent to the appellant for appearing before it. The Board shall also act in accordance with the observations made in Para 10 of the order dated 05.12.2012 which reads as under:- 10. "Whether Shri Sandu has the disabilities mentioned by the previous Boards which categorized him as SHAPE-2 (Permanent) or as Shape-3, or whether the Board of RMS which differed from five previous Boards is correct be got examined in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in the presence of ADG(Medical) and two other doctors not from the CRPF." The reconvened Medical Board shall analyse the results of its examination in the light of the aforesaid observations also. The result of the re-convened Medical Board of AIIMS be placed before this Court on or before the adjourned date. List on 04.07.2014. Interim direction to continue till then. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S.A. Makroo, ASGI under the seal and signature of Bench Secretary." 13. The result of the re-convened Medical Board of AIIMS be placed before this Court on or before the adjourned date. List on 04.07.2014. Interim direction to continue till then. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S.A. Makroo, ASGI under the seal and signature of Bench Secretary." 13. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction we found that the Medical Report dated 02.07.2014 submitted by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi did not assess as to whether the petitioner-appellant fell in Medical Category SHAPE I or not. It is appropriate to mention that the report of the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS dated 02.07.2014 comprised eight Doctors which included Dr. Rakesh Yadav as its Chairperson. The report of the Medical Board dated 02.07.2014 is set out below in extenso: "Sh. S. S. Sandhu, I.G., CRPF was examined by the board and his previous case records provided by the ADG (Medical) CAPFs were also perused. After taking the history and examination the board advised required investigation which were conducted w.e.f. 27.06.2014 to 01.07.2014 at AIIMS. The board reassembled on 20.07.2014 to discuss the test reports and conclude the findings and decide the medical category of Sh. S. S. Sandhu as per standing order 4/2008. Brief History & Findings: Based on the previous records submitted to the board and the details given by Mr. S. S. Sandhu. The patient is known diabetic since 1998. He is also hypertensive since 2007 (as mentioned on the OPD card of RML Hospital of 2007 for which he was prescribed anti hypertensive medications. His previous records and also the findings of the previous board shows that his blood sugar and blood pressure were not properly controlled (HbA1c up to 10.4 and blood pressure upto 160 mm Hg.). Dosage of anti diabetic drugs were progressively increased. Consultation in AIIMS in June 2010 showed poor control (Fasting blood glucose-299 mg%, PP Blood glucose 326 mg%). At that time, he was on high dose of oral drugs. It was also mentioned in the past records that he has Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. Though patient says that he has no symptoms as such at present and he is regularly monitoring his blood sugar at home which is controller. On examination Weight is 84 kg, height is 174 cm. (BMI-27.74). His Heart Rate is 120/min. regular, BP 160/85 mm Hg. Though patient says that he has no symptoms as such at present and he is regularly monitoring his blood sugar at home which is controller. On examination Weight is 84 kg, height is 174 cm. (BMI-27.74). His Heart Rate is 120/min. regular, BP 160/85 mm Hg. Taken twice. JVP - Normal. ECG shows sinus tachycardia. ECHO shows - Concentric LVH with Grade-l Diastolic Dysfunction with Normal LV systolic function. Stress Thalium test could not be done because patient refused of get it done. X-ray chest shows no abnormality. Ultrasound (Abdomen & KUB Prostrate):' Shows Grade-II Fatty Liver. Pulmonary function test reveals possible mild restrictive disease. NCV Test revealed normal study. The Dexa within normal limits. Bio Chemical parameters: T4 & TSH: 10.40 and 1.28. HbA1C:5.8% Urine R/M: Sugar 1+, rest normal. 24 Hours Urine: Albumin - 0.03 gm. / 24 hrs. & Creatinine - 0.87 gm. / 24 hrs. Blood Sugar Fasting & PP: 90 & (4. KFT: Urea -32, Creatinine - 0.8, Calcium- 9.3, Phosphate - S.7, Uric Acid -7.3, Sodium- 134, Potassium-4.1 LFT: Bilirubin Total - 0.5, Total Protein - 6.7, Albumin - 4.8, Globulin - 1.9, SGOT (AST)- 24, SGPT (ALT) - 26, Alk. Phos. (ALP)-198,Amylase-44. Lipid Profile: Total Cholesterol - 105, LDL Cholestrol - 41, HDL Cholestrol - 36, VLDC Cholestrol - 28, LDL/HDL Ratio - 1.1, Triglycerides-140. Hematology: Mono - 8.1%, HB 13.5 g/dl, Baso - 0.3%, EOSINO- 4.2%, Platelet Count - 237, ESR - qns mm/hr, Neutro - 69%, TLC-12.1,Lympho17.6%. On cross psychiatric evaluation and mental state examination there is no evidence suggestive of syndromal psychiatric-illness. On eye examination he was found to have a visual acuity of 6/5 and N6 in both eyes. Intraocular pressure (non-contact tonometry) was - 23 mm Hg. Either eye Dilated fundus examination revealed mild-moderate Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in right eye & mild Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in left eye. There was no evidence of macular edema (CSME). OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) showed few cystic changes in R/E and was normal in L/E. He was advised to followup 3-4 monthly for retina evaluation and have a repeat NCT. At present, evaluation of Hba1C shows good glycemic control on present treatment. Final Opinion: Sh. S. S. Sandhu, is a case of long standing diabetes, hypertension and overweight with evidence of target organ damage in the form of Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. At present, evaluation of Hba1C shows good glycemic control on present treatment. Final Opinion: Sh. S. S. Sandhu, is a case of long standing diabetes, hypertension and overweight with evidence of target organ damage in the form of Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. It is further submitted that the suitability of promotion/employment in CRPF as I.G. in respect of Shri S. S. Sandhu, IG, CRPF, should be decided by the competed medical authorities of CRPF based on the requisite medical standards for the said post and final medical Opinion of this Board, as mentioned in above para." 14. However, on the directions issued by the Court on 04.07.2014 the Ministry of Home Affairs-respondent placed the report of the Medical Board of AIIMS before the Committee/Medical Board headed by Additional Director General (Medical) CAPFs, AR with Directors (Med) BSF and SSB as members to analyze the medical examination report for determining whether the petitioner-appellant would fall under Medical Category SHAPE-I as per the provisions of Standing Order no. 04 of 2008. In compliance of those directions a report was submitted and in paras 4 and 5 of the Report dated 16.07.2014 the following conclusion has been reached: "4. The Medical Board, after analyzing the Medical Examination reports conducted by the AIIMS; has placed Sh S. S. Sandhu under Low Medical Category SHAPE-3 i.e. P-3 (Permanent) for long standing Diabetes and Hypertension with evidence of target organs damage in the form of Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in both eyes and Left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. In para 3 of its report, the Medical Board has categorically noted that an officer cannot be categorized in P2 if he has any target organ involvement and has evidence of retinopathy of any grade and Sh. S. S. Sandhu is having both. The report of the Committee received vide ADG(Med), CAPFs, AR & NSG U.O. E- 17020/ADG(Med)/Sandhu/DA-l/2014-1487-B dated 14.07.2014 is also enclosed herewith in original as Annexure-IV. 5. CRPF is requested to produce the original Medical Reports of AIIMS, New Delhi and SHAPE categorisation assessment done by the Medical Board headed by ADG (Med) CAPFs, AR &NSG before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar Bench on the date of next hearing i.e. on 18.07.2014 and intimate the direction of the Hon'ble High Court to MHA." 15. A perusal of the aforesaid paras would show that the petitioner-appellant has been placed in Low Medical Category SHAPE-3 i.e. P-3 (Permanent) on account of long standing Diabetes and Hypertension with evidence of target organs damage in the form of Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in both eyes and Left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. 16. As per order dated 13.06.2014 the petitioner-appellant had shown his willingness to submit himself for medical examination and he actually appeared. Accordingly the opinion of the Medical Board at AIIMS and the Medical Board headed by ADG (Med) have reached the conclusion that the petitioner- appellant does not fall under the Medical Category SHAPE-I and in fact he has Low Medical Category-SHAPE-3 (Permanent). Therefore, we are not left with any option except to uphold the view taken by the learned Writ Court. We have no hesitation to add that the view of the learned Single Judge with regard to compliance with principles of natural justice is absolutely consistent with law as quashing of the order dated 03.04.2013 would have resulted in restoration of promotion order dated 10.09.2012. We also do not find any substance in the allegations of malafide and endorse the view the learned Single Judge. 17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. <%4>he Writ Court produced information in a tabulated form revealing the medical category of the appellant-writ petitioner which is set out below in ex<%0>tenso: <body><table border="1" width="99%"><tr><td width="65" align="center">Sl. No. <td width="298">Details of Medical Board <td width="156" align="center">Date <td>Result <tr> <td width="65" align="center" height="36">1. <td width="298" height="36">Annual Medical Examination (AME) <td width="156" align="center" height="36">22.06.2011 <td height="36">SlHlAlP2El(T-24) (Unfit for promotion) <tr><td width="65" align="center" height="47">2. <td width="298" height="47">Annual Medical Examination (AME) <td width="156" align="center" height="47">04.01.2012 <td height="47">SlHlAlP3El(T-12) (Unfit for promotion) <tr><td width="65" align="center">3. <td width="298">On the request of the petitioner, a Review Medical Board excluding the doctors who were there in the Annual Medical Examination (AME) dated 04.01.2012 was constituted by Director (Med), CRPF <td width="156" align="center">16.06.2012 <td>SHAPE-2(T-24) (Unfit for promotion) <tr><td width="65" align="center">4. <td width="298">Petitioner requested to get his medical examination done by a neutral medical board outside CRPF. ADG (Med) constituted a medical board of Medical Officers(MOs) outside CRPF. This was a special dispensation given to the petitioner as there is no provision for a second review. <td width="298">Petitioner requested to get his medical examination done by a neutral medical board outside CRPF. ADG (Med) constituted a medical board of Medical Officers(MOs) outside CRPF. This was a special dispensation given to the petitioner as there is no provision for a second review. <td width="156"align="center">13.07.2012. <td>SHAPE-2 (Permanent) (Permanently unfit for promotion) <tr><td width="65" align="center">5. <td width="298">Medical Board head by Union Hone Secretary, DG CRPF, ADG (Med) and the Specialist nominated by DGHS (Dr. H.S. Isser, Sr. Cardiologist, Safdar Jung Hospital) <td width="156" align="center">26.07.2012. <td>Considered the petitioner not fit for promotion. <tr><td width="65" align="center">6. <td width="298">Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital <td width="156" align="center">27.08.2012 and 31.08.2012 <td>SlHlAlPl(0024)El. Without getting the report examined by ADG (Med), MHA wrongly considered this to signify that the officer was medically fit as per SHAPE requirement. <tr><td width="65" align="center">7. <td width="298">A Medical Board constituted in AIIMS <td width="156" align="center">04.01.2013. <td>The petitioner did not turn up for the medical examination. <tr><td width="65" align="center">8. <td width="298">A Medical Board chaired by ADM (Med) with IGs of Medical of other Forces was constituted to scrutinize the report of RML Hospital and all the relevant medical papers of the officer. <td width="156" align="center">Feb, 2013 <td>SHAPE-II (permanent) (presently unfit for promotion) <tr><td width="65" align="center">9. <td width="298">Medical Board headed by Union Home Secretary (same as mentioned at S. No. 5 above for examination of the report of Dr RML Hospital (as at S. no. 6 above) <td width="156" align="center">13.03.2013 <td>Observed that the petitioner was taken to be fit without getting the report of Dr. RML Hospital examined by ADG (Med). The Board examined the various report of the medical parameters of the petitioner and found him as SHAPE-2 Permanent- thus is permanently unfit for the promotion MHA instructed CRPF on 03.04.2013 that the release of promotion (from DIG to IG) dated 10.09.2012 of the petitioner `Stand Withdrawn). 4. The learned Writ Court took into consideration various factors and recorded the conclusion. It also noticed the contention of the petitioner-appellant that his Medical Category evaluated in the Annual Medical Examination of 20.06.2011 was tampered with by the concerned Doctor. The learned Writ Court took into consideration various factors and recorded the conclusion. It also noticed the contention of the petitioner-appellant that his Medical Category evaluated in the Annual Medical Examination of 20.06.2011 was tampered with by the concerned Doctor. On the aforesaid issue, the learned Writ Court concluded that the matter relating to the corrections and over-writing on the aforesaid Medical Report was pending in criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, Saket Court, New Delhi on a complaint filed by the petitioner-appellant and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and it was not considered proper to make any comment about the conduct of the petitioner-appellant. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to opine in paras 39 and 40 as under: "39. However, on a further reading of the aforesaid document annexure `k', it revealed that the petitioner, not satisfied with the examination conducted on 22.06.2011, preferred an appeal before DG, CRPF and a fresh Board was constituted and he was examined on 04.01.2012 by the fresh Board of three other Doctors. This Board, as indicated above, placed him in medical category P-3. The petitioner again made a representation asking for a fresh Medical Board. His request was acceded to and the fresh Board examined him on 16.06.2012 and placed him in SHAPE-2. The petitioner submitted yet another representation for re-examination. The re-examination was conducted on 13.07.2012 by a team of independent neutral Doctors and countersigned by ADG (Medical).This Board placed the petitioner in P-2 medical category. 40. The aforesaid note further reveals that in a meeting held by the Home Secretary, Dr. H. S. Isser, Senior Cardiologist, Safdarjung Hospital, opined that the petitioner was a long standing hypertensive and diabetic on medical treatment. His fundus examination showed sinus tachycardia and echocardiography shed mild concentric LVH with Grade I Diastolic dysfunction and he also had target organ involvement which was also likely to be progressive." 5. The learned Writ Court also examined the report given by RML Hospital, New Delhi which constituted the basis of promotion Order dated 10.09.2012 and culminated in posting of appellant-writ petitioner as Inspector General (Operations), Kashmir. He assumed his duties as such on 28.09.2012. The learned Writ Court has opined that RML Hospital has placed him in S1H1A1P1 (0-24) E1 medical category. He assumed his duties as such on 28.09.2012. The learned Writ Court has opined that RML Hospital has placed him in S1H1A1P1 (0-24) E1 medical category. The report was submitted directly to the concerned Ministry in the Home Department which recorded the category given by RML Hospital as SHAPE-I and ordered release of his promotion order. As a matter of fact under the provisions of Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 the Medical Report of RML Hospital was required to be submitted to the Approving and Perusing Authority because Clause 4.7 of the Standing Order provided that the Hospital Authorities were refrained from communicating the medical classification/grading awarded to an individual to him/her until the report / Board Proceeding is approved by the competent Medical Authority. The aforesaid procedure has been provided in order to obviate the unfamiliarity of the Doctors working in civil hospitals with the health norms and shape norms of CRPF. The test report of the Doctors of RML Hospital was required to be scrutinized by the Board before finalizing the SHAPE Category of the petitioner-appellant. The aforesaid view of the learned Writ Court is supported by the Standing Order No. 04 of 2008 which has been quoted in para 41 of the judgment and the same is set out below in extenso: 41. It is true that in-between, on a representation made by the petitioner to the Home Secretary, it was decided to have the medical examination of the petitioner done at RML Hospital. The said Hospital categorized the petitioner in medical category SHAP1(0-24)E1. This report is stated to have directly been submitted to the concerned Police Division in the Home Department who took it as SHAPE-1 and ordered release of promotion of the petitioner. In terms of the provisions of Standing Order No. 04/2008, as quoted hereinabove, the Board papers were required to be submitted to the approving and perusing authority. Clause 4.7 further provides that the hospital authorities shall not immediately communicate the medical classification grading awarded to the individual to him / her until the report / board proceeding is approved by the competent medical authority. It is submitted by the respondents that the Doctors of civil hospital are not familiar with the health norms and SHAPE norms of the CAPFs. The test reports of Dr. It is submitted by the respondents that the Doctors of civil hospital are not familiar with the health norms and SHAPE norms of the CAPFs. The test reports of Dr. RML Hospital had to be scrutinized by a competent authority/Board before deciding on SHAPE categorization of the petitioner. The submission is fortified by the relevant provision of the Standing Order no. 04/2008, which is extracted hereunder: "In case of newly detected cases of Impaired Glucose Tolerance, the individual should be placed in category P2(T-12) if his parameters are of P2. If there is no CV risk factor or any target organ involvement, the individual is placed in P-1. If the Parameters fall in the category of P1, then he be labeled as P1(O-24) and then deal with as given above for further categorization." It needs a mention here that the petitioner was not a newly detected case of impaired glucose tolerance. Notwithstanding that, P1 category, as defined under sub-clause (c) of Clause 22.5 under the caption "Diabetes Mellitus" of the Standing Order means personnel having diabetes or impaired Glucose Tolerance under treatment with Diet Control and or oral hypoglycemics within parameters mentioned thereunder. It provides that the given parameters must be maintained for a minimum period of six months with Fasting and 2 hour Post Prandial sugar every six weeks and Glycosylated HbAlc every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1. During this period of 24 weeks observation, the individual shall be kept labeled as P1 (0-24) and finally upgraded as P-1, as the case may be, if he maintains the control consistently. The note prepared and submitted by the Director (Pers) to the Joint Secretary (II) of MHA placed at page 37 of the writ petition reads as under: "Sh S. S. Sandhu, DIG, CRPF Medical Category was reported by the CAPF S1H1A1P2(P)E1, a case of Diabetes (Mellitus Type II with hypertension): His detailed medical examination report submitted by Dr. R.M. L. Hospital is at F/D. The Medical Board has placed in him S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1 medical category. R.M. L. Hospital is at F/D. The Medical Board has placed in him S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1 medical category. In accordance with para 23.5(c) of the existing Health Care Scheme (page 18/scheme placed below), the term P-1(O-24) refers to Diabetes Mellitus, where certain parameters mentioned in Para 23.5 (c) have to be maintained for a minimum period of six months with fasting and 2 hr Post-Prandial sugar every six weeks and Glycosylated HbA1c every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1." 6. It was on the aforesaid basis that the Directorate was misled to accept the writ petitioner-appellant as SHAPE-I. Rather than an illegality was committed resulting in withdrawal of the promotion order dated 10.09.2012. 7. The argument that the petitioner-appellant could not have been reverted from the rank of Inspector General of Police, CRPF without following procedure laid down by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was rejected by observing that the principles of natural justice should not be attracted in a case where the result of quashing an impugned order would be the restoration of any illegal order. The learned Writ Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajeev Sharma v. State and others, 2008 (1) JKJ 7 [HC]. The aforesaid view appears to be based on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Gadde Venkatoswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P, AIR 1966 SC 828 , M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 . In the case of Gadde Venkateswara (supra) the Panchayat Samithi in exercise of its statutory powers passed a resolution on 25.08.1960 to locate the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudden. Later on another resolution was passed on 29.05.1961 changing its location. On a representation by the villagers of Dharmajigudden the Government passed orders on 07.03.1962, setting aside the second resolution dated 29.05.1961. As a result the resolution dated 25.08.1960 was restored. Before passing the order dated 07.03.1962 no notice was given to the Panchayat Samithi. Hon'ble the Supreme Court traced the said order of the Government to the statutory provisions and held that notice to the Samithi under that provision was mandatory. Later, upon a review petition having been filed, the Government passed another order on 18.04.1963 cancelling its earlier order dated 07.03.1962. Hon'ble the Supreme Court traced the said order of the Government to the statutory provisions and held that notice to the Samithi under that provision was mandatory. Later, upon a review petition having been filed, the Government passed another order on 18.04.1963 cancelling its earlier order dated 07.03.1962. In other words it accepted the shifting of the Primary Health Centre to Lingapalem. The aforesaid order was passed without notice to the villagers of Dharmajigudden. This order was challenged unsuccessfully by the villagers in the High Court. On appeal by the villagers to Hon'ble the Supreme Court it was held that the order of the Government dated 18.04.1963 suffered from two defects. Firstly the Government did not issue any show cause notice to the villagers of Dharmajigudden and there was no power of review with the Government. Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that setting aside of the order dated 18.04.1963 would restore the earlier order dated 07.03.1962 which was also passed without notice to the effected party, the Panchayat Samithi and it would also result into setting aside of a valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. Supreme Court refused relief and agreed that the High Court was right in not entertaining the petition under Article 226 even if there was violation of principles of natural justice but proceed to observe as under:- `Both the orders of the Government namely the order dated 07.03.1962 and that of 18.04.1963 were not legally passed; the former because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi and the later because the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review the order made under Section 62 of the Act and also it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudden village........... In those circumstances was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order? If the High Court had quashed the said order it would have restored an illegal order -it would have given the Primary Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court therefore, in our view rightly refused to exercise its extra ordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case." 08. If the High Court had quashed the said order it would have restored an illegal order -it would have given the Primary Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolution passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court therefore, in our view rightly refused to exercise its extra ordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case." 08. Commenting upon the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta's case has held that the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao is a clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of principles of natural justice. `The Court can, under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretionary power of striking down an order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law.' 09. On the basis of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements Hon'ble the Supreme Court again concluded in the same fashion in the case of Raj Kumar Soni (supra). Therefore, we reiterate the view of the learned Writ Court in refusing to exercise the discretion for withdrawing the order of promotion in respect of the petitioner-appellant. 10. The other ground to reject the submission of the petitioner-appellant finds mention in following paragraphs: "49. The present case is totally distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the petitioner has remained associated with determination of his medical category by successive Medical Boards convened at his requests, details whereof have been given above. It would suffice to say here that he was medically examined on 22.06.2011, 04.01.2012, 16.06.2012, 13.07.2012 and 26.07.2012 by different Medical Boards constituted by the respondents. It hardly needs a reiteration that medical board conducted on 04.01.2012 was constituted pursuant to his appeal against the medical category dated 22.06.2011. The other medical boards were constituted pursuant to his representations dated 16.06.2012, 20.06.2012, 27.06.2012 and 03.08.2012, and he failed to obtain SHAPE-1. 50. The RML Hospital conducted the medical examination of the petitioner on 27.08.2012 and 31.08.2012. They labeled him as S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, i.e., P1(O-24). The other medical boards were constituted pursuant to his representations dated 16.06.2012, 20.06.2012, 27.06.2012 and 03.08.2012, and he failed to obtain SHAPE-1. 50. The RML Hospital conducted the medical examination of the petitioner on 27.08.2012 and 31.08.2012. They labeled him as S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, i.e., P1(O-24). In terms of the relevant provision of the Standing Order No. 04/2008, as mentioned earlier, a person labeled as P1(O-24) has to maintain the prescribed parameters for a minimum period of 6 months with fasting and 2 hour Post Prandial sugar every 6 weeks and Glycosylated HbAlc every 3 months before the individual is upgraded to P1. Admittedly, that was not done in case of the petitioner and, instead the aforesaid report of RML Hospital was directly submitted to the concerned Police Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs without the knowledge, perusal and/or approval of Medical authorities of the Force. The concerned Police Division of MHA, under a mistaken belief that S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1 meant medical category SHAPE-1, ordered release of the promotion of the petitioner. 51. In the above factual position, in reality the petitioner has been given repeated and adequate opportunity to demonstrate his medical condition. It is not a case where the medical categorization of the petitioner has been done behind his back. It is also not the case of the petitioner that S1H1A1P1(O-24)E1, as recorded by the RML Hospital, meant SHAPE-1 in terms of the provisions of the Standing Order No. 04/2008. Besides, rectification of the wrong that had crept in has been done within the shortest possible time. Therefore, the judgment cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and not attracted in the instant case. In that case the concerned authorities had initiated a departmental enquiry, framed charge sheet against the petitioner, and reverted him during the pendency of the enquiry on a ground which necessarily warranted an enquiry. In the instant case, even if some sort of explanation would be called from him, he would not improve his medical category merely by spoken or written words. It is a condition to be determined on medical examination and petitioner has had enough opportunities to prove and demonstrate his medical category wherein in he all through failed." 11. In the instant case, even if some sort of explanation would be called from him, he would not improve his medical category merely by spoken or written words. It is a condition to be determined on medical examination and petitioner has had enough opportunities to prove and demonstrate his medical category wherein in he all through failed." 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the learned Writ Court found that the petitioner-appellant did not challenge the determination of Medical Category as SHAPE-2EI (permanent) based on the Medical Report of RML Hospital by the Board which constituted the basis for the decision to withdraw the promotion order dated 10.09.2012. The allegations of malafide were also rightly rejected by the learned Writ Court. 12. When the matter came up for consideration on 13.06.2014 we asked Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-appellant as to whether his client was willing to submit himself for medical examination before the Medical Board of AIIMS on or before 30.06.2014. After obtaining instructions from his client Mr. Jan stated that the appellant-petitioner was willing to submit himself for medical examination and will appear before the Medical Board of AIIMS. Accordingly, we passed the following detailed order: "A pristine question raised in this case is `whether the applicant would fall under SHAPE-I category in accordance with the instructions and guidelines contained in Standing Order no. 04/2008 or he would fall in category lower than SHAPE-I'. There had been conflicting reports as per the order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure K pages 136 and 137). Learned Single Judge in Para 57 has observed that the appellant would be free to abide by the directive to undergo the medical examination to be taken by the medical board of AIIMS strictly in terms of the impugned judgment. In the event, his medical category in accordance with the Standing Order no. 04/2008 is found as SHAPE-I, then he would be promoted as Inspector General (IG) retrospectively from the date of such promotion given to him earlier with all consequential benefits. In order to obviate any further complications, the concerned Medical Authorities of CRPF/CAPFs such as Director (Medical) IG (Medical)/ADG (Medical) as may be ordered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, would associate with the AIIMS Medical Board proceedings and submit report to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Mr. In order to obviate any further complications, the concerned Medical Authorities of CRPF/CAPFs such as Director (Medical) IG (Medical)/ADG (Medical) as may be ordered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, would associate with the AIIMS Medical Board proceedings and submit report to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Mr. Jan, learned senior counsel for the appellant after obtaining instructions from the appellant has stated that the appellant is willing to submit himself for medical examination and would appear before the Medical Board of AIIMS on or before 30.06.2014. The Medical Board may be constituted expeditiously and intimation may be sent to the appellant for appearing before it. The Board shall also act in accordance with the observations made in Para 10 of the order dated 05.12.2012 which reads as under:- 10. "Whether Shri Sandu has the disabilities mentioned by the previous Boards which categorized him as SHAPE-2 (Permanent) or as Shape-3, or whether the Board of RMS which differed from five previous Boards is correct be got examined in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in the presence of ADG(Medical) and two other doctors not from the CRPF." The reconvened Medical Board shall analyse the results of its examination in the light of the aforesaid observations also. The result of the re-convened Medical Board of AIIMS be placed before this Court on or before the adjourned date. List on 04.07.2014. Interim direction to continue till then. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S.A. Makroo, ASGI under the seal and signature of Bench Secretary." 13. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction we found that the Medical Report dated 02.07.2014 submitted by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi did not assess as to whether the petitioner-appellant fell in Medical Category SHAPE I or not. It is appropriate to mention that the report of the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS dated 02.07.2014 comprised eight Doctors which included Dr. Rakesh Yadav as its Chairperson. The report of the Medical Board dated 02.07.2014 is set out below in extenso: "Sh. S. S. Sandhu, I.G., CRPF was examined by the board and his previous case records provided by the ADG (Medical) CAPFs were also perused. After taking the history and examination the board advised required investigation which were conducted w.e.f. 27.06.2014 to 01.07.2014 at AIIMS. The report of the Medical Board dated 02.07.2014 is set out below in extenso: "Sh. S. S. Sandhu, I.G., CRPF was examined by the board and his previous case records provided by the ADG (Medical) CAPFs were also perused. After taking the history and examination the board advised required investigation which were conducted w.e.f. 27.06.2014 to 01.07.2014 at AIIMS. The board reassembled on 20.07.2014 to discuss the test reports and conclude the findings and decide the medical category of Sh. S. S. Sandhu as per standing order 4/2008. Brief History & Findings: Based on the previous records submitted to the board and the details given by Mr. S. S. Sandhu. The patient is known diabetic since 1998. He is also hypertensive since 2007 (as mentioned on the OPD card of RML Hospital of 2007 for which he was prescribed anti hypertensive medications. His previous records and also the findings of the previous board shows that his blood sugar and blood pressure were not properly controlled (HbA1c up to 10.4 and blood pressure upto 160 mm Hg.). Dosage of anti diabetic drugs were progressively increased. Consultation in AIIMS in June 2010 showed poor control (Fasting blood glucose-299 mg%, PP Blood glucose 326 mg%). At that time, he was on high dose of oral drugs. It was also mentioned in the past records that he has Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. Though patient says that he has no symptoms as such at present and he is regularly monitoring his blood sugar at home which is controller. On examination Weight is 84 kg, height is 174 cm. (BMI-27.74). His Heart Rate is 120/min. regular, BP 160/85 mm Hg. Taken twice. JVP - Normal. ECG shows sinus tachycardia. ECHO shows - Concentric LVH with Grade-l Diastolic Dysfunction with Normal LV systolic function. Stress Thalium test could not be done because patient refused of get it done. X-ray chest shows no abnormality. Ultrasound (Abdomen & KUB Prostrate):' Shows Grade-II Fatty Liver. Pulmonary function test reveals possible mild restrictive disease. NCV Test revealed normal study. The Dexa within normal limits. Bio Chemical parameters: T4 & TSH: 10.40 and 1.28. HbA1C:5.8% Urine R/M: Sugar 1+, rest normal. 24 Hours Urine: Albumin - 0.03 gm. / 24 hrs. & Creatinine - 0.87 gm. / 24 hrs. Blood Sugar Fasting & PP: 90 & (4. Pulmonary function test reveals possible mild restrictive disease. NCV Test revealed normal study. The Dexa within normal limits. Bio Chemical parameters: T4 & TSH: 10.40 and 1.28. HbA1C:5.8% Urine R/M: Sugar 1+, rest normal. 24 Hours Urine: Albumin - 0.03 gm. / 24 hrs. & Creatinine - 0.87 gm. / 24 hrs. Blood Sugar Fasting & PP: 90 & (4. KFT: Urea -32, Creatinine - 0.8, Calcium- 9.3, Phosphate - S.7, Uric Acid -7.3, Sodium- 134, Potassium-4.1 LFT: Bilirubin Total - 0.5, Total Protein - 6.7, Albumin - 4.8, Globulin - 1.9, SGOT (AST)- 24, SGPT (ALT) - 26, Alk. Phos. (ALP)-198,Amylase-44. Lipid Profile: Total Cholesterol - 105, LDL Cholestrol - 41, HDL Cholestrol - 36, VLDC Cholestrol - 28, LDL/HDL Ratio - 1.1, Triglycerides-140. Hematology: Mono - 8.1%, HB 13.5 g/dl, Baso - 0.3%, EOSINO- 4.2%, Platelet Count - 237, ESR - qns mm/hr, Neutro - 69%, TLC-12.1,Lympho17.6%. On cross psychiatric evaluation and mental state examination there is no evidence suggestive of syndromal psychiatric-illness. On eye examination he was found to have a visual acuity of 6/5 and N6 in both eyes. Intraocular pressure (non-contact tonometry) was - 23 mm Hg. Either eye Dilated fundus examination revealed mild-moderate Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in right eye & mild Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in left eye. There was no evidence of macular edema (CSME). OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) showed few cystic changes in R/E and was normal in L/E. He was advised to followup 3-4 monthly for retina evaluation and have a repeat NCT. At present, evaluation of Hba1C shows good glycemic control on present treatment. Final Opinion: Sh. S. S. Sandhu, is a case of long standing diabetes, hypertension and overweight with evidence of target organ damage in the form of Non proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. It is further submitted that the suitability of promotion/employment in CRPF as I.G. in respect of Shri S. S. Sandhu, IG, CRPF, should be decided by the competed medical authorities of CRPF based on the requisite medical standards for the said post and final medical Opinion of this Board, as mentioned in above para." 14. It is further submitted that the suitability of promotion/employment in CRPF as I.G. in respect of Shri S. S. Sandhu, IG, CRPF, should be decided by the competed medical authorities of CRPF based on the requisite medical standards for the said post and final medical Opinion of this Board, as mentioned in above para." 14. However, on the directions issued by the Court on 04.07.2014 the Ministry of Home Affairs-respondent placed the report of the Medical Board of AIIMS before the Committee/Medical Board headed by Additional Director General (Medical) CAPFs, AR with Directors (Med) BSF and SSB as members to analyze the medical examination report for determining whether the petitioner-appellant would fall under Medical Category SHAPE-I as per the provisions of Standing Order no. 04 of 2008. In compliance of those directions a report was submitted and in paras 4 and 5 of the Report dated 16.07.2014 the following conclusion has been reached: "4. The Medical Board, after analyzing the Medical Examination reports conducted by the AIIMS; has placed Sh S. S. Sandhu under Low Medical Category SHAPE-3 i.e. P-3 (Permanent) for long standing Diabetes and Hypertension with evidence of target organs damage in the form of Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in both eyes and Left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. In para 3 of its report, the Medical Board has categorically noted that an officer cannot be categorized in P2 if he has any target organ involvement and has evidence of retinopathy of any grade and Sh. S. S. Sandhu is having both. The report of the Committee received vide ADG(Med), CAPFs, AR & NSG U.O. E- 17020/ADG(Med)/Sandhu/DA-l/2014-1487-B dated 14.07.2014 is also enclosed herewith in original as Annexure-IV. 5. CRPF is requested to produce the original Medical Reports of AIIMS, New Delhi and SHAPE categorisation assessment done by the Medical Board headed by ADG (Med) CAPFs, AR &NSG before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar Bench on the date of next hearing i.e. on 18.07.2014 and intimate the direction of the Hon'ble High Court to MHA." 15. A perusal of the aforesaid paras would show that the petitioner-appellant has been placed in Low Medical Category SHAPE-3 i.e. P-3 (Permanent) on account of long standing Diabetes and Hypertension with evidence of target organs damage in the form of Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in both eyes and Left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid paras would show that the petitioner-appellant has been placed in Low Medical Category SHAPE-3 i.e. P-3 (Permanent) on account of long standing Diabetes and Hypertension with evidence of target organs damage in the form of Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in both eyes and Left Ventricle hypertrophy with diastolic dysfunction. 16. As per order dated 13.06.2014 the petitioner-appellant had shown his willingness to submit himself for medical examination and he actually appeared. Accordingly the opinion of the Medical Board at AIIMS and the Medical Board headed by ADG (Med) have reached the conclusion that the petitioner- appellant does not fall under the Medical Category SHAPE-I and in fact he has Low Medical Category-SHAPE-3 (Permanent). Therefore, we are not left with any option except to uphold the view taken by the learned Writ Court. We have no hesitation to add that the view of the learned Single Judge with regard to compliance with principles of natural justice is absolutely consistent with law as quashing of the order dated 03.04.2013 would have resulted in restoration of promotion order dated 10.09.2012. We also do not find any substance in the allegations of malafide and endorse the view the learned Single Judge. 17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Shamsher Singh Sandhu v. Union Of India