Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs Suman Siddh on 17 February, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1992/2025, CM APPL. 9369/2025 & CM APPL.
9370/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC
with Mr. Manish Vashist and Ms. Sanya
Kalsi, Advs.
versus
SUMAN SIDDH .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 17.02.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Constable
in the Delhi Police. He qualified in the Delhi Police Examination,
2023 but was not selected on the ground that he was medically unfit.
2. The Detailed Medical Examination1 which took place on 24
January 2024, noted thus:
"19. i) Fit ............... Medical Certificate in duplicate
enclosed ..........
ii) Unfit on account of (1) Haematuria = RBC = 1-2
"DME" hereinafter
hpy
iii) Temp. Unfit on account of (2) BP = 152/90 (4)
Psoriatic Lesions all over body (3) P.R = 112 bpm.
Category E
Signature: Dr. Vasundhara Yadav
DC/SMO, 83 BN BSF"
3. The case of the respondent was therefore referred to the Review
Medical Board. The Review Medical Examination2 report of 30
January 2024 read thus:
"2) Brief of Review Medical Examination & findings thereof:
Urine - WNL, BP - 130/70 mmHg, PR - 87/min
O/E - As per dermatological opinion - old scars s/o multiple itchy
reddish papules on hands, back.
? Psoriasis or Nummular Dermatitis
3) Final Opinion:
☒ FIT
UNFIT on account of psoriatic lesions all over body.
Place: HQ BSF Hospital-II, BICT Camp, Tigri, New Delhi
Dated the ______ 2024
(Name & Signature with Stamp)"
4. In accordance with the aforesaid reference, the case of the
respondent was referred for dermatological opinion to the Lok Nayak
Jai Prakash Narain Hospital3. We deem it appropriate to provide a
screenshot of the opinion of the LNJP Hospital, thus:
"RME" hereinafter
"LNJP" hereinafter
5. It could be seen that the opinion of LNJP Hospital was also "?
Psoriasis/Nummular dermatitis", meaning that there was no positive
finding of psoriasis or dermatitis, and the diagnosis was still at the
query stage.
6. The LNJP Hospital deemed it appropriate to refer the
respondent for a skin biopsy for histopathological examination.
7. The result of histopathological examination, following skin
biopsy of the respondent, was returned on 3 February 2024, and read
thus: -
"Received skin biopsy included epidermis and dermis. Epidermis
shows hyperkeratosis, of parakeratosis type, acanthosis, focally,
there is suprapapillary thinning. No microabscess or
hypogranulosis identified.
Dermis shows mild chronic inflammation."
8. However, prior to the aforesaid biopsy report being available,
the petitioner conducted the RME on 30 January 2024 and disqualified
the respondent on the ground that the respondent had psoriatic lesions
all over the body.
9. On the basis of the DME and RME Report, the respondent was
declared ineligible for recruitment as Constable. Aggrieved thereby,
the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which,
by way of the judgement under challenge, has directed the respondent
to be referred for a fresh medical examination.
10. The GNCTD assails the judgement.
11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
12. Ms. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for respondent, submits, and
we agree, that once the LNJP Hospital, to whom the petitioner had
referred the case of the respondent for expert opinion, chose it
appropriate to direct skin biopsy of the respondent for
histopathological analysis, the petitioner was required to wait for the
report of the histopathological analysis of the respondent's skin before
conducting the RME.
13. Though Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that
the report of the skin biopsy is also adverse to the respondent, we,
quite frankly, do not possess the medical acumen to understand the
report.
14. In these circumstances, we are unable to fault the Central
Administrative Tribunal4 for having directed the respondent to be
subjected to a fresh medical examination.
15. We, therefore, affirm the view of the Tribunal. We also clarify
that the fresh medical examination, as and when conducted, would
take into account the histopathological report following the skin
biopsy of the respondent.
16. The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, in
limine, in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2025
an
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
