Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission And Ors vs Gaurav Sharavat And Anr on 25 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 1966/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankit Raj, Senior Panel
Counsel Union of India, Mr. Ali
Mohammed Khan, Mr. Vikram
Kumar, Ms. Insha, Advs.
versus
GAURAV SHARAVAT AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar and Ms.
Muskan Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This application seeks an early hearing of the writ petition.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
application is allowed, and the matter is taken up for hearing today
itself.
3. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1966/2025
4. This Petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 22.03.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
Original Application (O.A.) No. 432/2024 titled Punit Kumar and
Ors. v. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., allowing the said O.A.
along with the other batch petitions with the following directions:-
"16. CONCLUSION
16.1 The present OA(s) are accordingly
disposed of with a direction to the
Competent authority amongst the
respondents to conduct a fresh medical
examination of the applicant (s) by way
of constituting an appropriate medical
board (the composition of which should
include three ophthalmologists. In case
of women candidates, one of the
ophthalmologists should be women) in
any government medical hospital except
the Hospital which has already
conducted the initial and the review
medical examination.
16.2 Needless to say that the competent
authority shall thereafter pass
appropriate orders with respect to the
candidature of the applicant(s) based
on the outcome of such an independent/
fresh medical examination.
16.3 The directions contained herein
shall be complied with within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In the event
of the applicant being declared
medically fit and subject to his meeting
other criteria, she shall be given
appointment forthwith. The applicant,
in such an eventuality, shall also be
entitled to grant of all consequential
benefits, however, strictly on notional
basis.
16.4 We make it clear that besides the
limited directions given above, we have
neither examined nor commented upon
the merits of the respective claim of the
applicant(s) as set forth in these OA.
We have examined the case of the
parties in respect of visual acuity only.
Further, nothing in this order is to be
construed as an opinion upon the
medical reports or upon the competence
of the doctors who have issued it. We
record that we are not entitled to
comment upon their professional
competence."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the
present case, the respondents had been found 'unfit' for appointment
to the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) by the Detailed Medical
Board Examination (DME) on the ground of being suffering from
'hypertension'. He submits that even in the Review Medical
Examination (RME), the same findings were reiterated. In fact, before
giving its report, the RME had also directed for the admission of the
respondents to a hospital and for their blood pressure reading to be
taken three times a day for three days. He submits that all these
readings were above normal, indicating that the respondents suffered
from 'hypertension'. He submits that these reports could not have
been set aside by the learned Tribunal in a casual manner, thereby
directing the petitioners to carry out a re-medical examination of the
respondents. He further places reliance on the Judgement of this Court
in Staff Selection Commission and Ors. Vs. Vineet Kumar and
Ors.,2024 SCC OnLine Del 8855.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioners did not comply with the Guidelines
applicable to such medical examination. She submits that the Review
Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam
Rifles for GOs and NGOs' applicable to the Central Armed Police
Forces makes it obligatory for the Medical Board to have the
candidate admitted in a hospital and other tests are also to be carried
out to confirm the findings of such readings before giving their final
opinion. She placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff
Selection Commission & Ors. vs. Mukeem Khan & Anr., 2025 SCC
online Del 379, in support of her submissions. She submits that no
such clinical investigation of the respondents was conducted in the
present case before declaring them unfit for appointment.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
Counsels for the parties. In the present case, at the stage of the DME,
the blood pressure reading of the respondents was taken only once.
The respondents challenged this finding before the RME. The RME,
in our opinion rightly so, directed the respondents to be admitted to a
hospital and their blood pressure reading to be taken three times a day
for three days. The record, however, indicates that the said direction
was not followed in either of the cases, and a maximum of two
readings on a particular day were taken. Be that as it may, the medical
guidelines applicable to the CAPFs, require as under:-
e) For candidates who have been rejected on
the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should
be admitted/hospitalised by the Board before
giving their final opinion regarding the
candidate's fitness or otherwise. The
hospitalization report should indicate whether
the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature
due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to
any organic disease. In all such cases X -ra y
and electro-cardiographic examinations of
heart and blood examinations like
cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc,
tests should also be carried out."
8. Apart from the recording the blood pressure, the petitioners
were also obliged to carry out certain medical examinations in the
form of X-ray, Electro-Cardiographic Examinations of Heart and
Blood Examinations like Cholesterol/Lipid Profile etc., to support
their readings and the findings of the candidates suffering from
hypertension. Admittedly these tests were also not carried out. In
similar circumstances, this Court in Mukeem Khan (supra), had
dismissed the petition against the order of the learned Tribunal which
had directed the re-medical examination of the respondent.
9. In Vineet Kumar (supra), the respondent therein had also been
subjected to a blood examination and his lipid profile was also found
to be above normal. Therefore, the petitioners had complied with the
Guidelines.
10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition. The
same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
April 25, 2025
Ab/mn/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
