Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission (Hdqrs) & ... vs Hemant Maraiya on 17 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4840/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (HDQRS) & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Ms. Priya Singh and Mr.
Nishant Sharma, Advs.
versus
HEMANT MARAIYA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 22172/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4840/2025 & CM APPL. 22173/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'learned Tribunal') in Original Application No. 3420/2024
(hereinafter referred to as, 'OA'), titled Hemant Maraiya v. Staff
Selection Commission (Hdqrs.) and Anr., allowing the OA filed by
the respondent herein with the following direction:
"4. In view of the above submissions, the OA
is allowed and the respondents are directed to
allow the applicant to appear for the re-view
medical examination to be conducted by them
as per the directions issued by this Tribunal in
OA 1857/2024 and also in the present case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the Detailed Medical
Examination Board and the Review Medical Examination Board had
declared the respondent unfit for appointment to the post of Constable
(Executive) Male, in the Constable (Executive) Male and Female in
Delhi Police Examination-2023, on account of him suffering from
'phimosis'. He submits that the respondent later got himself operated
for the same, and on the basis thereon, claims medical fitness. He
submits that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that it is only
post the operation that the respondent became fit for the appointment.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who
appears on an advance notice of this petition, places reliance on the
Judgment of this Court in Manish Kasana v. Union of India & Ors.
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1583, wherein this Court, while taking note of
the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner therein that
'phimosis' is a curable disease and not a ground for declaring a
candidate unfit for services, referred the candidate therein for a re-
medical examination.
5. We also take note of the fact that admittedly the respondent had
been medically examined by the Detailed Medical Examination
(hereinafter referred to as, 'DME') on 20.01.2024. As per the
Guidelines, one month's time ought to be granted to a candidate to
request for a Review Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as,
'RME'). In the present case the RME, however, was conducted on
25.01.2024, i.e., within five days from the DME. In Staff Selection
Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, this Court
had considered the aspect of curability and sufficient time being given
to the candidate for the said purpose if the rule so permit. We quote
from the said Judgment as under:
"10.38 In our considered opinion, the following
principles would apply:
xxx
(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
only to verify the correctness of the decision of
the initial Medical Board which assessed the
candidate.
xxx "
6. Applying the above principle to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order.
7. The petition along with pending application(s) is, accordingly,
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 17, 2025
Sc/sm/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
