JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the decision of the learned Writ Court dated 20.04.2009 in SWP No. 561/2006 in case titled 'Subash Chander vs. Union of India & ors.' with a prayer for setting aside the same. 2. Case was called out twice. None appeared for the petitioner. However, since the appeal relates to the year 2009, we are not inclined to adjourn the same. We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, records attached thereto and propose to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal are that the appellant filed SWP No. 561/2006 in case titled 'Subash Chander vs. Union of India & ors.' challenging his retirement from service on medical grounds ordered under Rule-25(3) of the BSF Rules, 1969 vide Annexure-D dated 18.10.2006. The aforementioned writ petition was clubbed with a bunch of writ petitions in which challenge had been raised by the petitioners therein to the proposed action of the respondents for boarding them out from service on medical grounds with a prayer for directions to allow them to continue in service or in the alternative to be provided sheltered appointment in terms of the provisions of the "Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995". 4. The case as set up by the appellant is that in 1988 he had a fall while on duty in Aurangabad, Bihar whereupon he was admitted in civil hospital at Aurangabad and after being provided treatment was declared fit to resume duty but on examination by BSF doctors was declared to be a Psychiatric patient and was placed in category CEE(T) for six months which was further extended for two years, that the appellant was accompanied by his wife who was teased by doctors of Btn Hospital whereupon the appellant filed a complaint against the doctors which caused a lot of irritation to the respondents where after the appellant was transferred to Srinagar where he was again examined by the doctors of the Btn., who sent him for medical check up to Government Medical College, Jammu where he was declared fit by the doctors. However, the respondents were not satisfied with the certificate issued by the Board of Doctors, resultantly, the appellant was repeatedly sent for unwanted and unwarranted check up resulting in shock treatment being given to him without there being any necessity for the said treatment, that in the circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition in the year 1997 before this Court seeking directions for quashing of orders of the respondents for fresh medical check up with a further prayer that the respondents be directed to follow the opinion of the medical board of GMC Jammu. 5. In paragraph No. 3 of the appeal, it is stated that the appellant did not pursue the aforesaid writ petition. Subsequently, the appellant was again referred to Principal GMC Jammu for examination in the department of Psychiatry where he was examined and vide communication Annexure-A dated 28.10.2003 report was submitted to respondent No. 1 by the Professor and Head of Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Jammu, that the appellant was not suffering from any mental illness and was completely fit for undertaking official duties as assigned by the officer Incharge. However, the respondents not feeling contended with the report of the Medical Board, Government Medical College, Jammu again referred the appellant to the Standing Medical Board vide communication dated 23.12.2003 whereupon the appellant was examined by Standing Medical Board, GMC Jammu on 13.02.2004 and medical report issued in favour of the appellant forwarded to the Commandant (Headquarter) Jammu Frontier Hospital, BSF Paloura Camp Jammu vide letter Annexure-B dated 19.02.2004. Copy of the medical report referred to above is not attached along with Annexure-B. However, copy of the said report dated 28.11.2003 signed by the Medical Officer as well as Chairman Medical Board termed as disability certificate was placed on record alongwith objections as Annexure-R6 and the same reveals comments "Post Traumatic Ataxia" needs Physicians Consultation. Annexure-R6 further records remarks of Physician Specialist "examined in MOPD. Pt. is suffering from Ataxia. Disability is permanent in nature. Signed 28.11, Physician Specialist, Government Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Jammu. Thereafter certificate dated 13.02.2004 issued by the Chairman, Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College & Associated Hospitals, Jammu which was attached alongwith the objections as Annexure R-7 is reproduced hereunder:- "No. 86455301 Const. Subhash Chander of 163 Bn. BSF has been examined by the Standing Medical Board, GMC, Jammu along with all the relevant investigations. Thereafter certificate dated 13.02.2004 issued by the Chairman, Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College & Associated Hospitals, Jammu which was attached alongwith the objections as Annexure R-7 is reproduced hereunder:- "No. 86455301 Const. Subhash Chander of 163 Bn. BSF has been examined by the Standing Medical Board, GMC, Jammu along with all the relevant investigations. Certified that he can walk in straight line with mild impairment. His fundus is normal. Finger nose test is normal. He can do light duties." 6. However, proceedings of Medical Board (Annexure-R-9 to the objections) conducted by board of doctors constituted by the BSF authorities comprising Presiding Officer and two other doctors as members on 04.03.2004 reveal the appellant suffering from Post Traumatic Ataxia to the extent of the same interfering with his day to day functioning, of his disability being 50%, consequentially of his being unfit for duty w.e.f. April, 1993 to date. 7. That reference is also made to Annexure R4 i.e. confidential Medical Board Proceedings which records diagnosis of Psychoneurosis with date and place of origin as 18th Nov 89-Chandigarh as also of abnormal behaviour since seven years, of appellant having been produced before the Medical Board in June 93 and of having been placed in category CEE(P), of the appellant having reported back to AD(med) Srinagar since Bn was at Kargil and AD(Med) Srinagar referred him to Psychiatric wing Medical College Jammu in Nov 93 and since then till August 95 he was under treatment of Medical College Jammu as OPD case and returned to the Btn in September 95 and of his having been placed in Cat CEE(P) w.e.f. 29.6.93 to 23.6.95 by Medical Hospital. 8. That when the medical certificates are seen in totality, the same reflect that even the Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College, Jammu has not given a clean chit to the appellant in certificate Annexure-R7 dated 13.02.2004. There is no clear cut finding in the said certificate of the appellant being medically fit to discharge duty as a combatant and it has only been mentioned that he could walk in straight line with 'Mild Impairment' and that he could do light duties. 9. That on the other hand, disability certificate dated 28.11.2003 issued by the Government of J&K, Department of Social Welfare mentions the appellant to be a case of Post Traumatic Ataxia requiring consultation and of the disability being permanent in nature. 9. That on the other hand, disability certificate dated 28.11.2003 issued by the Government of J&K, Department of Social Welfare mentions the appellant to be a case of Post Traumatic Ataxia requiring consultation and of the disability being permanent in nature. Thereafter, the proceedings of the Medical Board constituted by the BSF authorities i.e. Annexure R-9 records the appellant to be a patient of Post Traumatic Ataxia with disability at 50% and unfit to perform operational duty w.e.f. April, 1993. 10. The official respondents and the doctors of the Medical Board of the BSF which conducted the medical examination of the appellant are the experts for judging as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was suffering from Post Traumatic Ataxia with disability of 50% and was, therefore, unfit for continuing on operational duty. The certificate issued by the Standing Medical Board of Jammu Government Medical College merely records the appellant to be fit only for light duties. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellant that he was fit for discharging duty i.e. operational duties as a combatant is unjustified. In fact the appellant has been recorded as suffering from Psychoneurosis w.e.f. 18.11.1989. 11. The aforementioned aspect of the matter has been noticed by us in view of the submissions in the grounds of appeal that the same was not gone into by the learned writ court and that the learned writ court had decided the writ petition without deciding the real controversy in issue in the writ petition. 12. That a perusal of decision dated 30.04.2009 reveals that a number of constables in the BSF were served notices for being boarded out on medical grounds on account of their having been found to be medically unfit on examination by a Medical Board. The said constables were issued show cause notices as to why proposed action for boarding them out from service with invalid pension as admissible under rules be not carried out. In the circumstances prayer was for quashing of said show cause notices with an alternative prayer that in case they were not found fit for regular job, they be given sheltered appointment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. In the circumstances prayer was for quashing of said show cause notices with an alternative prayer that in case they were not found fit for regular job, they be given sheltered appointment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The claim to sheltered appointment was made on the ground that the notification dated 10.09.2002 issued by the Government of India exempting the BSF from the applicability of the aforesaid Act was bad. Prayer by the petitioners therein was for quashing of the said notification on ground of discrimination vis-a-vis army officials in providing of sheltered appointment. In the objections, stand was taken by the respondents that the constables were not fit for service, therefore, could not be retained in service and had therefore been issued show cause notice and any final decision in the matter would be taken on consideration of the reply received from the said constables. In so far as the application of the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was concerned, it was stated that the BSF had been exempted from the purview of Section 33 & 47 of the Disability Act, 1995 therefore, there was no violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. That issue with regard to applicability of the Disability Act, 1995 was considered by this Court in 'SWP No. 1252/2005 titled as Jang Bahadur Singh v. Union of India, SWP No. 698/2004 titled as Harbans Lal v. Union of India, SWP No. 804/2004' titled as Parshotam Dass v. Union of India, SWP No. 846/2005 titled as Jitender Kumar v. Union of India, SWP No. 1137/2005 titled as Dharambir v. Union of India, SWP No. 1569/2008 titled as Parkash Veer v. Union of India, SWP No. 187/2004 titled as Purshotam Dass v. Union of India, SWP No. 947/2007 titled as Abdul Rashid v. Union of India, SWP No. 660/2007 titled as Ct. Subash Chander v. Union of India and SWP No. 561/2006 titled as Subash Chander v. Union of India decided on 20.04.2009. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced hereunder:- "One of the objects for enacting the Act is to remove any discrimination against the persons with disabilities in sharing of development benefits vis-a-vis non-disabled persons. Subash Chander v. Union of India and SWP No. 561/2006 titled as Subash Chander v. Union of India decided on 20.04.2009. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced hereunder:- "One of the objects for enacting the Act is to remove any discrimination against the persons with disabilities in sharing of development benefits vis-a-vis non-disabled persons. With that object in view the legislature has made provision for reservation of posts and for granting shelter appointment to the disabled, in section 33 and 47 of the Act. However, an exception to the benefit to be granted to the disabled has been carved out in the provisions appended to these sections whereby the appropriate Government has been empowered to exempt any establishment from the purview of these sections where having regard to the type of work carried on by such establishment it considers that the benefit should not be given. The object of incorporating such provisions appears to be that working and efficiency of such establishment is not impaired by giving shelter appointments to disabled. In the present case the establishment in issue is Border Security Force established under Border Security Force Act 1968. The preamble of the Act describes the object as "An act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for ensuring the security of the Borders of India and matters connected therewith." With that object in view it cannot be said to be irrational that no disabled person is kept on the cadres of the force. The benefit envisaged for the disabled under the Act is in the nature of a concession. It cannot be meant to be applied in all cases in every establishment irrespective of the nature of work carried on because if it is applied universally then quite possibly it may affect the working of a particular department which would not be in the national interest. No straight Jacket formula can be laid down for identifying the nature of work carried on by any particular establishment for the purposes of granting exemption. It would vary from establishment to establishment. Therefore, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Government by the statute it cannot be said to be conferring of arbitrary power upon the government. The petitioners cannot lawfully contend that the said provisions provide for discrimination between disabled of the establishment with other establishments. It would vary from establishment to establishment. Therefore, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Government by the statute it cannot be said to be conferring of arbitrary power upon the government. The petitioners cannot lawfully contend that the said provisions provide for discrimination between disabled of the establishment with other establishments. The Guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is subject to the reasonable classification and classification of the establishments for the purposes of granting exemption by having regard to the nature of the work carried does not offend the right of equality." 14. That although mention has been made in paragraph Nos. 13 & 15 of the writ petition to challenge to circular dated 10.09.2002 by virtue of which all categories of combatant personnel were exempted from the application of the provisions of the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, yet no grounds of challenge have been raised in the writ petition. Be as it may, the issue has been adjudicated in the connected petitions as referred to above and the challenge dismissed. Operative part of the judgment as extracted hereinabove is self explanatory. 15. As regards the plea of the appellant that his case was different, inasmuch as, in the other connected writ petitions, the constables had merely been issued a show cause notice as to why the proposed action be not taken whereas in his case, the appellant had been prematurely retired, therefore, there was no need to refer the case of the appellant for reconsideration and that the learned Writ Court had failed to address the real controversy involved in the writ petition. The plea as raised is without any basis. It needs mention that as noticed above, the appellant has not stated the full factual background of the case in the grounds of appeal i.e. vis-a-vis recommendations contained in the disability certificate dated 28.11.2003 i.e. Annexure-R6 as well as the recommendation in the certificate issued by the Standing Medical Board i.e. Annexure-R7 by the Chairman, Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College & Associated Hospitals, Jammu dated 13.02.2004 as also the proceedings of the Medical Board constituted by the Deputy Inspector General, BSF Barmer i.e. Annexure R9 which resulted in findings dated 04.03.2004 of the appellant suffering from Post Traumatic Ataxia with 50% disability therefore being unfit for performing operational duty. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid decision warranting interference by this Court. In view of the position as noted above, the appeal is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.