Delhi High Court
Delhi Police & Anr. vs Virendra Singh & Anr. on 25 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~259
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 14540/2024 & CM APPL. 60962/2024, CM APPL.
60963/2024, CM APPL. 60964/2024, CM APPL. 60965/2024
DELHI POLICE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Balendu Shekhar, CGSC
with Mr.Krishna Chaitanya,
Mr.Rajkumar Maurya, Advs.
(M-9999666769).
versus
VIRENDRA SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the
Order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in
OA No.1967/2024, allowing the said original application filed by
the respondents herein and directing the petitioner herein to have
the respondent's re-medical examination conducted by a duly
constituted Medical Board, which would include a specialist in
the respective field.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present
case, the respondent no.1 had been declared unfit for
appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) by the Detailed
Medical Examination (DME) conducted on 19.01.2024, which
had opined inter alia that he was suffering from (i) 'Skin Lesion
over trunk' and (ii) 'Flat Foot'.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Review Medical Examination (RME) conducted on 27.01.2024,
vide its report dated 31.01.2024, also opined that the respondent
was unfit for appointment as he was suffering from 'Biphasic
Amyloidosis and Atopic Diathesis'. He submits that these
medical opinions could not have been interfered with by the
learned Tribunal without any evidence to the contrary.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the proceedings of the Review Medical Board
indicate that the petitioner was referred for examination by an
expert at the Lok Nayak Hospital. The expert prescribed
medicines to the respondent, but without allowing adequate time
for the respondent to take these medicines, the Review Medical
Board declared the respondent unfit for appointment on the very
next day. Placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in
WP(C) No.13762/2024 in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v.
Kuldeep, Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:8441-DB, the learned
counsel for the respondent submits that this Court has dismissed
similar petitions filed by the petitioner herein.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
6. In Kuldeep (supra), this Court, as in the present case, found that
there was no Specialist either in the DME or RME and therefore,
the RME referred the respondent therein to a Specialist for
examination. The Specialist opined the respondent therein to be
'medically fit' from the Dermatologist side for duties. On those
facts, this Court held as under:-
"34. We feel the direction, for a fresh medical
examination of the respondent to be justified in
the present case, for the following reasons:
(i) It is obvious that there was no specialist
either in the DME or in the RME; else no
occasion would have arisen to refer the matter
for a specialist opinion. In fact the reference
was specifically made as per the applicable
Recruitment Guidelines which required the
opinion of the specialist to be obtained, where
the condition from which the candidate was
found to be suffering required such an opinion.
(ii) The reference to the Dermatologist for
opinion was specifically made by the Review
Medical Board. This, therefore, is not a case
in which the respondent suo motu obtained the
opinion of a private hospital.
(iii) While referring the case, the Review
Medical Board stated that the reference was
made for CT/GD recruitment of Delhi Police
and required the opinion of a Dermatologist
as per the Recruitment Guidelines.
(iv) The Dermatologist to whom the Review
Medical Board had referred the case found the
respondent, though suffering from Tinea
Cruris (Extensive), to be "medically fit from
Dermatologist side for duties" and suggested
certain therapeutic remedies to be taken by the
respondent, which review was to be
undertaken after two weeks.
(v) The decision of the Review Medical Board
which was taken the very next day merely
notes the opinion of the Dermatologist as
"S/O. Tinea Cruris (Extensive)", omitting to
note that the Dermatologist has separately
certified that the respondent was "medically fit
from Dermatology side for duties", thereby
indicating that the Review Medical Board had
not holistically seen the opinion of the
Dermatologist.
(viii) At the very least, in these circumstances,
in the absence of any binding Guidelines or
instruction requiring the RME to return a
finding in a time bound frame, the respondent
ought to have been allowed to undertake the
therapy suggested by the dermatologist, before
assessing his fitness for recruitment. Needless
to say, this would not mean that the RME
would have to be indefinitely postponed,
awaiting the recovery of the respondent.
However, as the dermatologist, to whom the
respondent had been referred by the Review
Medical Board itself, had certified that he was
dermatologically fit for duties, if the Review
Medical Board felt otherwise, there had to be
some reason for it to do so, and that reason
had to be forthcoming in its decision.
(ix) It has to be borne in mind that the
reference to the dermatologist was not made
by the Review Medical Board de hors any
guidelines, but was as per the Recruitment
Guidelines governing recruitment to the post
of Constable. In that view of the matter, the
Review Medical Board could not blindly
ignore the opinion of the dermatologist. The
dermatologist specifically found the
respondent to be "medically fit from
dermatology side for duties". Inasmuch as the
reference had been made as per the
Recruitment Guidelines, this opinion could not
have been blindly ignored. If this were
permitted, the stipulation, in the Recruitment
Guidelines, for reference of the candidate to a
specialist in appropriate cases, would be
reduced to a redundancy.
(x) In fact, it appears that the Review Medical
Board, in the present case, overlooked the
specific opinion, by the dermatologist at the
Felix Hospital, that the respondent was
medically fit for duties. There is no reference
to the said opinion in the final decision of the
Review Medical Board. Even on the ground of
failure to take cognizance of the material
before it, therefore, the decision of the Review
Medical Board would be vulnerable to
interference.
35. In these circumstances, we concur with the
decision of the learned Tribunal to refer the
matter to fresh Medical Board for
examination, but for our own reasons,
elucidated supra."
7. In the present case as well, it was the Review Medical Board
which referred the respondent herein for the opinion of a
Dermatologist. The Dermatologist at the Lok Nayak Hospital
declared the respondent as medically fit from the Dermatology
side. The Review Medical Board, however, still declared the
respondent as unfit for appointment without giving any reasons
for its disagreement with the opinion of an expert.
8. Following the Judgment in Kuldeep (supra), we therefore, find
no infirmity in the direction issued by the learned Tribunal to
have the respondent medically re-examined for the purpose of
determining his fitness.
9. The petition as well as the pending applications is accordingly
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2024/RN/as
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
