Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs Ankit Kumar on 25 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 14470/2024 & CM APPL. 60656/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Premtosh K. Mishra
CGSC, Mr.Manish Vashist,
Ms.Sanya Kalsi, Advs.
versus
ANKIT KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated
31.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned
Tribunal') in OA No. 2017/2024 titled Ankit Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Ors.
2. The learned Tribunal by the Impugned Order has directed the
petitioners to have a re-medical examination of the respondent carried
out by a Medical Board which should consist of a specialist in the
subject.
3. Briefly stating the facts, the respondent had applied for the post of
Constable (Executive) (Male) pursuant to the Advertisement dated
01.09.2023 issued by the petitioners for the recruitment to the said post.
4. Having cleared the initial stages of selection, the respondent
appeared before the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Board, which
declared the respondent 'unfit' for appointment finding that the
respondent suffered from "Left Arm Carry Angle 24°".
5. Aggrieved of the above report, the respondent applied for the
Review Medical Examination (RME).
6. In the RME, the respondent was again declared 'unfit' for
appointment with remarks "carrying angle left 24°".
7. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent approached the learned
Tribunal in form of the above OA, which was allowed by the learned
Tribunal by its Order dated 31.05.2024.
8. The petitioners have challenged the Impugned Order of the
learned Tribunal stating that the learned Tribunal has erred in interfering
with the consistent opinion of the Medical Experts in the DME and RME
with respect to the unfitness of the respondent due to the Carrying Angle
of his Left Hand. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
these reports could not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal
in a casual manner based on the reports of subsequent government
hospitals as had been produced by the respondent.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who
appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that the Medical
Boards did not consist of an Orthopedic Specialist who could have
opined if the condition suffered by the respondent would in any manner
hamper his performance of duties. In support of his plea, he places
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff Selection Commission
and Ors. vs. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600. He further
submits that, in fact, the respondent got himself medically examined
subsequently from the District Hospital, Hajipur, and from Nehru
Hospital BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, which
declared the respondent "Examined and found clinically fit but carrying
angle appears to be minimal" and that the respondent was Carrying
Angle "Lt. 19° and Lt. 20°".
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
11. At the outset, we would reiterate the general principles that are
applicable while considering a challenge to the Reports of the medical
experts in a recruitment process. The opinion of the Medical Boards,
which consists of experts in the field, should not be lightly interfered
with by the Court/Tribunal. However, this Court in Aman Singh (supra)
also emphasized on the presence of a specialist in the Medical Board or
for opinion of a specialist to be taken by the Medical Board before
declaring a candidate as 'unfit' for appointment on account of certain
conditions as under:
"10.38 In our considered opinion, the
following principles would apply:
xxx
(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."
(emphasis supplied)
12. As is evident from the above, one of the principles laid down by
this Court is that for certain conditions, in case the DME or the RME
does not consist of a subject expert, the candidate should be referred to
the expert in the field for obtaining an opinion on the medical fitness of
the candidate for certain conditions which may require thorough
examination.
13. In the present case, admittedly, the DME or the RME did not
consist of an Orthopedic Specialist. We are not the experts who can
opine whether the condition suffered by the respondent would in any
manner affect the performance of his duties. It is for a specialist to opine
on the same.
14. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed
by the learned Tribunal.
15. The petition alongwith the pending application is accordingly
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 25, 2025/Arya/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
