$~4 & 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.11.2024
(4)+ W.P.(C) 14731/2024
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Harshit Goel &Ms.Meghna
Rao, Advs. for Mr.Nune Balraj,
SPC.
versus
VINEET KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms.Esha Mazumdar, Mr.Setu
Niket, Ms.Unni Maya S. &
Mr.DevanshKhatter, Advs.
(7)+ W.P.(C) 14831/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.P.S. Singh, CGSC with
Ms.Annu Singh, Mr.Praneet
Kumar &Mr.Amrendra K.
Singh, Advs.
versus
RAMBABU VERMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 61865/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14731/2024
CM APPL. 62307/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14831/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CAV 523/2024 in W.P.(C) 14831/2024
2. As the learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance on
advance notice, the caveat stands discharged.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
3. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the
petitions are being taken up for final hearing.
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & CM APPL. 61863/2024
4. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the
Order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as,
‘Tribunal’), in Original Application (in short, ‘OA’) No.760/204,
titled Vineet Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission &Ors., whereby
the learned Tribunal allowed the said petition filed by the respondent
herein and directed the petitioners herein to, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order,
constitute a fresh medical board for examining the respondent herein,
which should inc lude a specialist in the field, and in the event the
respondent herein is declared med ically fit, then, subject to the
condition of his meeting other criteria of his appointment, appoint him
to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police to the
respondent.
5. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be summarised
as under:
a. The petitioners advertised 7547 posts of Constable (Executive)
Male and Female in the Delhi Police vide
notification/advertisement dated 01.09.2023. The respondent
applied for the said post and underwent the Computer Based
Examination (CBE) and the Physical Endurance and
Measurement Test (in short, ‘PE&MT’).
b. Thereafter, the respondent was subjected to an examination by a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
Detailed Med ical Examination (in short, “DME”) Board, which,
vide report dated 22.01.2024, declared the respondent unfit for
appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) on the ground
of presence of “Hypertension 164/98 mmHG”.
c. Aggrieved of the above, the respondent applied for a Review
Medical Examination (in short, “RME”), which was conducted
on 03.02.2024, again declaring the respondent unfit for
appointment on account of “Hypertension”.
d. The respondent claims to have, thereafter, on 05.02.2024, got
himself examined at the Community Service Centre, Tappal,
Aligarh, wherein his Blood Pressure was found normal. He
thereafter, got himself examined at the Primary Health Centre,
Jewar, Gautam Buddha Nagar and at the All India Institute Of
Medical Sciences, Delhi (in short, ‘AIIMS’), where his BP was
again found to be normal.
e. Armed with these reports, the respondent approached the
learned Tribunal seeking the relief of appointment to the post of
Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police.
f. The said Original Application, as noted hereinabove, has been
allowed by the learned Tribunal, directing the petitioners herein
to constitute a fresh med ical board for examining the
respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opinion
of the DMEB and the RMB could not have been interfered with by the
learned Tribunal, as they were based on the reports of experts. He
submits that the purpose of Review Medical Examination (in short,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
“RME”) is not to give time to the candidate to cure himself/ herself of
the ailment that has been found in the Detailed Medical Examination
(in short, “DME”) but to ensure that no error has crept in the
examination by the DMEB. He submits that in the present case, the
RMB had taken the BP read ings of the respondent over a period of
five days with multip le times during the day, and each time the BP
was found to be above normal. He submits that, therefore, the learned
Tribunal has erred in interfering with these opinions and directing the
petitioners to conduct a re-med ical examination of the respondent. In
support, he places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff
Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
7600.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent places
reliance on the reports from Community Service Centre, Tappal,
Aligarh, the Primary Health Centre, Jewar, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
and at the AIIMS, where respondent’s BP was found to be normal. He
submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly d irected a re-examination
of the respondent by a fresh med ical board to be constituted by the
petitioners.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the parties.
9. In the Detailed Med ical Board Examination, the respondent was
declared unfit for appointment on the ground that he is suffering from
hypertens ion. The BP was measured as 164/98 mmHG. The
respondent applied for a Review Medical Board. The Review Med ical
Board advised that the respondent be admitted and his BP be recorded
thrice daily for three days. The BP of the respondent, on admission,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
was recorded as under, and he was declared unfit due to
Hypertens ion:-
10. The respondent, claiming that he got himself examined at the
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Delhi, where his BP was
recorded as 135/86 mmHg, and also at the Primary Health Centre at
Gautam Buddha Nagar, where his BP was recorded as near perfect,
that is, 120/80 mmHG and Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Aligarh, where
his BP was recorded as 110/75 mmHG, approached the learned
Tribunal seeking a re-examination of his medical condition. The
learned Tribunal, decid ing a batch of petitions, allowed the Original
Application filed by the respondent, without adverting to the peculiar
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
facts of this case as narrated hereinabove.
11. In the present case, as highlighted hereinabove, the Review
Medical Board, before giving its opinion, had advised the admission
of the respondent for three days and for the BP to be measured three
times a day. The measurements of the BP of the respondent have been
reproduced by us hereinabove. On most occasions, it has been found
to be above normal. This, therefore, cannot be passed off as a
simp liciter case of white-coat hypertens ion.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our
attention to the lip id profile report of the respondent, which shows that
even the VLDL of the respondent was above normal. As per the
medical literature, a high level of VLDL cholestero l is associated with
the development of plaque deposits on arteries walls. Therefore, there
was other empirical material also before the Review Med ical Board
for opining that the respondent be declared unfit on account of
suffering from hypertens ion. The medical opinions from the AIIMS
and the Health Centres themselves cannot be suffic ient grounds to
reopen the medical examination of the respondent without find ing any
mala fide or procedural irregularities committed by the Med ical
Boards appointed by the petitioners. The opinion of the Med ical
Board has to be considered as final and can be interfered with only in
rare circumstances. It is to be remembered that the respondent was
seeking appointment to the Delhi Police, where the rigours of duties
are very tough. It is, therefore, essential that the appointed candidate
must be of perfect health and even a doubt on his/her fitness can give
rise to a justifiable cause for rejection of his/her candidature.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
13. In Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh,
2024:DHC:8441-DB, this Court, on a detailed examination of the
precedents on the issue, laid down the circumstances in which the
Court may or may not exerc ise its power of jud icial review. They are
reproduced as under:-
“10.38 In our considered opinion, the
following principles would apply:
(i) The principles that apply in the case of
recruitment to disciplined Forces, involved
with safety and security, internal and external,
such as the Armed and Paramilitary Forces,
or the Police, are distinct and different from
those which apply to normal civilian
recruitment. The standards of fitness, and the
rigour of the examination to be conducted, are
undoubtedly higher and stricter.
(ii) There is no absolute proscription against
judicial review of, or of judicial interference
with, decisions of Medical Boards or Review
Medical Boards. In appropriate cases, the
Court can interfere.
(iii) The general principle is, however,
undoubtedly one of circumspection. The Court
is to remain mindful of the fact that it is not
peopled either with persons having intricate
medical knowledge, or were aware of the
needs of the Force to which the concerned
candidate seeks entry. There is an irrebuttable
presumption that judges are not medical men
or persons conversant with the intricacies of
medicine, therapeutics or medical conditions.
They must, therefore, defer to the decisions of
the authorities in that regard, specifically of
the Medical Boards which may have assessed
the candidate. The function of the Court can
only, therefore, be to examine whether the
manner in which the candidate was assessed
by the Medical Boards, and the conclusion
which the Medical Boards have arrived,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
inspires confidence, or transgresses any
established norm of law, procedure or fair
play. If it does not, the Court cannot itself
examine the material on record to come to a
conclusion as to whether the candidate does,
or does not, suffer from the concerned ailment,
as that would amount to sitting in appeal over
the decision of the Medical Boards, which is
not permissible in law.
(iv) The situations in which a Court can
legitimately interfere with the final outcome of
the examination of the candidate by the
Medical Board or the Review Medical Board
are limited, but well-defined. Some of these
may be enumerated as under:
(a) A breach of the prescribed
procedure that is required to be
followed during examination constitutes
a legitimate ground for interference. If
the examination of the candidate has not
taken place in the manner in which the
applicable Guidelines or prescribed
procedure requires it to be undertaken,
the examination, and its results,
would ipso facto stand vitiated.
(b) If there is a notable discrepancy
between the findings of the DME and
the RME, or the Appellate Medical
Board, interference may be justified. In
this, the Court has to be conscious of
what constitutes a “discrepancy”. A
situation in which, for example, the
DME finds the candidate to be suffering
from three medical conditions, whereas
the RME, or the Appellate Medical
Board, finds the candidate to be
suffering only from one of the said three
conditions, would not constitute a
discrepancy, so long as the candidate is
disqualified because of the presence of
the condition concurrently found by the
DME and the RME or the Appellate
Medical Board. This is because, insofar
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
as the existence of the said condition is
concerned, there is concurrence and
uniformity of opinion between the DME
and the RME, or the Appellate Medical
Board. In such a circumstance, the
Court would ordinarily accept that the
candidate suffered from the said
condition. Thereafter, as the issue of
whether the said condition is sufficient
to justify exclusion of the candidate from
the Force is not an aspect which would
concern the Court, the candidate's
petition would have to be rejected.
(c) If the condition is one which requires
a specialist opinion, and there is no
specialist on the Boards which have
examined the candidate, a case for
interference is made out. In this,
however, the Court must be satisfied
that the condition is one which requires
examination by a specialist. One may
differentiate, for example, the existence
of a haemorrhoid or a skin lesion which
is apparent to any doctor who sees the
candidate, with an internal orthopaedic
deformity, which may require
radiographic examination and analysis,
or an ophthalmological impairment.
Where the existence of a medical
condition which ordinarily would
require a specialist for assessment is
certified only by Medical Boards which
do not include any such specialist, the
Court would be justified in directing a
fresh examination of the candidate by a
specialist, or a Board which includes a
specialist. This would be all the more so
if the candidate has himself contacted a
specialist who has opined in his favour.
(d) Where the Medical Board, be it the
DME or the RME or the Appellate
Medical Board, itself refers the
candidate to a specialist or to another
hospital or doctor for opinion, even if
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
the said opinion is not binding, the
Medical Board is to provide reasons for
disregarding the opinion and holding
contrary to it. If, therefore, on the aspect
of whether the candidate does, or does
not, suffer from a particular ailment, the
respondents themselves refer the
candidate to another doctor or hospital,
and the opinion of the said doctor or
hospital is in the candidate's favour,
then, if the Medical Board, without
providing any reasons for not accepting
the verdict of the said doctor or
hospital, nonetheless disqualifies the
candidate, a case for interference is
made out.
(e) Similarly, if the Medical Board
requisition s specialist investigations
such as radiographic or
ultrasonological tests, the results of the
said tests cannot be ignored by the
Medical Board. If it does so, a case for
interference is made out.
(f) If there are applicable Guidelines,
Rules or Regulations governing the
manner in which Medical Examination
of the candidate is required to be
conducted, then, if the DME or the RME
breaches the stipulated protocol, a clear
case for interference is made out.
(v) Opinions of private, or even government,
hospitals, obtained by the concerned
candidate, cannot constitute a legitimate basis
for referring the case for re-examination. At
the same time, if the condition is such as
require a specialist's view, and the Medical
Board and Review Medical Board do not
include such specialists, then the Court may be
justified in directing the candidate to be re-
examined by a specialist or by a Medical
Board which includes a specialist. In passing
such a direction, the Court may legitimately
place reliance on the opinion of such a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
specialist, even if privately obtained by the
candidate. It is reiterated, however, that, if the
Medical Board or the Review Medical Board
consists of doctors who are sufficiently
equipped and qualified to pronounce on the
candidate's condition, then an outside medical
opinion obtained by the candidate of his own
volition, even if favourable to him and
contrary to the findings of the DME or the
RME, would not justify referring the candidate
for a fresh medical examination.
(vi) The aspect of “curability” assumes
significance in many cases. Certain medical
conditions may be curable. The Court has to
be cautious in dealing with such cases. If the
condition is itself specified, in the applicable
Rules or Guidelines, as one which, by its very
existence, renders the candidate unfit, the
Court may discredit the aspect of curability. If
there is no such stipulation, and the condition
is curable with treatment, then, depending on
the facts of the case, the Court may opine that
the Review Medical Board ought to have given
the candidate a chance to have his condition
treated and cured. That cannot, however, be
undertaken by the Court of its own volition, as
a Court cannot hazard a medical opinion
regarding curability, or the advisability of
allowing the candidate a chance to cure the
ailment. Such a decision can be taken only if
there is authoritative medical opinion, from a
source to which the respondents themselves
have sought opinion or referred the candidate,
that the condition is curable with treatment. In
such a case, if there is no binding time frame
within which the Review Medical Board is to
pronounce its decision on the candidate's
fitness, the Court may, in a given case, direct a
fresh examination of the candidate after she,
or he, has been afforded an opportunity to
remedy her, or his, condition. It has to be
remembered that the provision for a Review
Medical Board is not envisaged as a chance
for unfit candidates to make themselves fit, but
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
only to verify the correctness of the decision of
the initial Medical Board which assessed the
candidate.
(vii) The extent of judicial review has, at all
times, to be restricted to the medical
examination of the candidate concerned. The
Court is completely proscribed even from
observing, much less opining, that the medical
disability from which the candidate may be
suffering is not such as would interfere with
the discharge, by her, or him, of her, or his,
duties as a member of the concerned Force.
The suitability of the candidates to function as
a member of the Force, given the medical
condition from which the candidate suffers,
has to be entirely left to the members of the
Force to assess the candidate, as they alone
are aware of the nature of the work that the
candidate, if appointed, would have to
undertake, and the capacity of the candidates
to undertake the said work. In other words,
once the Court finds that the decision that the
candidate concerned suffers from a particular
ailment does not merit judicial interference,
the matter must rest there. The Court cannot
proceed one step further and examine whether
the ailment is such as would render the
candidate unfit for appointment as a member
of the concerned Force.”
14. Applying the above princip les to the facts of the present case, in
our view, the learned Tribunal erred in d irecting a fresh med ical
examination of the respondent based only on the med ical reports that
the respondent produced. The learned Tribunal could not have been
oblivious to the fact that the BP can be brought to normal range by
taking medication, however, that would not cure the underlying issue
that the candidate is suffering from. Especially keeping in view the
harsh conditions in which the cand idate, if appointed, may have to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
work, we are of the opinion that a strict standard has to be applied by
the petitioners for such appointment. Tested on this standard, there
was no infirmity in the rejection of the candidature of the respondent.
The learned Tribunal, therefore, erred in interfering with the same and
the Impugned Order cannot be sustained.
15. Accordingly, we allo w the present petition and set aside the
Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
W.P.(C) 14831/2024 & CM APPL. 62306/2024
17. In this Writ Petition as well, the respondent had been admitted
for recording his BP over a period of three days. The readings that
were recorded are as under:-
18. The would clearly show that the BP of the respondent was high
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19
on all occasions. It could not, therefore, be attributed simply to white-
coat Hypertens ion. The learned Tribunal has failed to advert to this
important and relevant factor in passing the Impugned Directions.
19. For reasons recorded herein above, we, therefore, set as ide the
Impugned Order.
20. The petition is allowed. The pend ing applications stand
disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2024/rv/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14731/2024 & W.P.(C) 14831/2024 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:10.12.2024
14:50:19