$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 16308/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC
and Mr. Vipul Verma, Adv.
versus
DEV YADAV .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu
Niket, Ms. Unni Maya and Mr.
Devansh Khatter, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
O R D E R
% 30.11.2024
SHALINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 68748/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 16308/2024, CM APPL. 68747/2024
2. The present petition has been filed assailing the Order dated
14.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
( Tribunal ) in Original Application (in
hereinafter referred to as, ‘ ’
OA ) No. 794/2024 titled Dev Yadav v. Staff Selection
short, ‘ ’
Committee & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the OA
and directed the petitioners to conduct a re-medical examination of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16308/2024 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.12.2024
15:08:27
respondent by constituting a fresh Medical Board.
3. The petitioners had advertised post of Constable (Executive) in
the Delhi Police, pursuant to the Notification/Advertisement dated
01.09.2023. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent had
applied for recruitment to the aforesaid post and appeared in the
Computer Based Examination (CBE), which was conducted pan-India
from 14.11.2023 to 03.12.2023, and successfully qualified in the said
exam. Thereafter, on 14.01.2024, he appeared for Physical Endurance
and Measurement Test (PE&MT) conducted by the Delhi Police at
their academies in Wazirabad and Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi.
Subsequent thereto, the respondent underwent a Review Medical
Examination ( RME ) on 25.01.2024 conducted by the
in short, ‘ ’
Review Medical Board (in s RMB ), where the respondent was
hort, ‘ ’
declared Hypertension with Rt. Renal Calculus; mild
‘Unfit’ due to ‘
Hydronephrosis and also defective colour vision . Consequently, the
’ ‘ ’
respondent was disqualified and no ffer of Appointment Letter was
‘O ’
issued to him. Being dissatisfied with the opinion given by RMB, the
respondent filed the said OA before the learned Tribunal, which was
disposed of by the learned Tribunal by directing the petitioners to
conduct a fresh medical examination of the respondent by a Board of
Doctors which must include a Specialist in the respective field(s)
within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
Impugned Order.
4. Aggrieved of the above direction, the petitioners have filed the
present petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16308/2024 Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.12.2024
15:08:27
contentions recorded in his petition, submits that the learned Tribunal
has erroneously directed the petitioners to conduct a fresh medical
examination of the respondent, without providing any justification for
the same. He submits that after the declaration of results, a number of
candidates had challenged the rejection of their candidature on
medical grounds and had approached the learned Tribunal by way of
filing OAs. However, a majority of the other OAs were disposed of by
the learned Tribunal without making a reference to the individual facts
of the case. He submits that similarly, in the present case as well, the
learned Tribunal has passed a mechanical order directing a fresh
medical examination of the respondent without going into the facts of
the present case, which is not warranted as the RMB has furnished a
detailed opinion on the basis of the medical reports of the respondent
and found him Unfit . In this regard, the learned counsel has placed
‘ ’
reliance on the decision of this Court in Staff Selection Commission
& Anr. v. Vishal, NC 2024:DHC:9144-DB.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, while
supporting the Impugned Order, submits that a fresh medical
examination is required in the present case as the Detailed Medical
Board ( DMB ), on the basis of a single reading, had found
in short, ‘ ’
the respondent to be suffering from high blood pressure and had
declared his candidature nfit on medical grounds. With respect to
‘U ’
the distant vision, it recorded the same as a
‘Temporary Unfitness’
whereas, the RMB has declared the petitioner Unfit on account of
‘ ’
Hypertension with Right Renal Calculus; with mild Hydronephrosis
‘ ’
and also with defective colour vision . She submits that in view of the
‘ ’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16308/2024 Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.12.2024
15:08:27
difference in the opinion of the DMB and RMB, the respondent could
not have been declared by the petitioners and the learned
‘Unfit’
Tribunal has rightly directed for the composition of a fresh Medical
Board.
7. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
8. In the present case, the respondent was medically examined by
the DMB and was found on account of High blood pressure ,
‘Unfit’ ‘ ’
the same being 166/96 mm Hg and on account of
‘temporarily Unfit’
distant vision, being R-6/9 and L-6/12. The RME of the respondent
was conducted on 25.01.2024, and after considering the medical
reports of the respondent, the petitioners found him nfit on account
‘U ’
of Hypertension with Right Renal Calculus with mild
‘
Hydronephrosis and defective colour vision .
’ ‘ ’
9. The learned Tribunal has not examined the medical reports and
the opinion of the Medical Boards placed before it. The learned
Tribunal has mechanically reproduced the extracts from its previous
orders and the judgments passed by this Court without assigning any
reasons while passing directions for the re-examination of the
respondent by a fresh Medical Board.
10. In Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Vishal (supra), this
Court had remanded the case to learned Tribunal for de novo
adjudication, keeping in mind the principles laid down by this Court in
Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
7600 and Staff Selection Commission v. Amit Goswami, 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 7985.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16308/2024 Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.12.2024
15:08:27
11. In light of the above, as the Order passed by the learned
Tribunal in the present case is devoid of any reasons and without
application of mind, and the directions for a fresh medical
examination has been passed in a mechanical manner, therefore, the
Impugned Order dated 14.05.2024 is set aside. The OA is remanded
back for fresh adjudication, keeping in view the principles laid down
by this Court in Aman Singh (supra) and Amit Goswami (supra).
12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on
09.12.2024.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2024/ss/F/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16308/2024 Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:04.12.2024
15:08:27