Delhi High Court
Esaiya Kerketta vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 483/2025
ESAIYA KERKETTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prahil Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, Mr. Anuj
Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari and Mr. Pawan
Karan Deo, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 2238/2025 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 483/2025 and CM APPL. 2237/2025
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
report of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, „DME‟) dated
11.12.2024, and the Review Medical Examination (in short, „RME‟)
dated 16.12.2024, by which the petitioner has been declared „Unfit‟
for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) in
the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2022 („LDCE-
2022‟).
4. The DME, vide its report dated 11.12.2024, had declared the
petitioner „Unfit‟ for appointment on account of the petitioner
suffering from:-
„Hypopigmentation on prepuce of
penis‟
5. The petitioner applied for RME, however, was again declared
„Unfit‟ by the Impugned Report dated 16.12.2024, observing as
under:-
"2) Brief of Review Medical Examination &
Finding thereof. Board examined the
individual & referred to Dermatology (OPD)
at GIMS G Noida, Case seen by Dr. Pihu
Sethi, (Asst. Prof) as per opinion individual
diagnosed (Genital Vitiligo) (Medical
guideline revised in 2015 (CAP F) page no 07,
para 06, subpara -19. It is clean cut mention
having above mention individual declared
(UNFIT). Board also agree with Splst.
Opinion & individual declared (UNFIT) to
above reason.
3) Final Opinion
a) UNFIT
b) UNFIT on account of Hypopigmentation on
prepuce of penis."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as would be
evident from the Impugned RME Report itself, the petitioner had been
referred to a Specialist dermatologist, who, vide Certificate dated
13.12.2024, had opined that the condition of the petitioner is
„asymptomatic‟, and „should not affect his physical and personal
activities‟. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite
of this opinion, the RME merely relying upon Clause 6(19) of the
Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for
recruitment in CAPFs, NSG & AR dated 20.05.2015 (in short,
„Medical Guidelines‟) has declared the petitioner „Unfit‟ for
appointment. He submits that the RME failed to consider that in terms
of Clause 6(19) of the Medical Guidelines, it is only the "Chronic
Skin Disease" which can be a ground for rejection of the Candidature.
He further submits that if the condition suffered by the petitioner does
not have any effect on the performance of service and is
asymptomatic, the same cannot be a ground for rejection. He places
reliance on the Order dated 18.07.2017, passed by this Court in
Review Petition No. 569/2012 in W.P.(C) 3391/2012 titled Durga
Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
7. He submits that the petitioner is presently working as Constable
(GD) with the respondents and is posted as Special Task Force
(„STF‟) Commando pursuant to passing his STF Commando Course
for the same. It is therefore, even otherwise evident that the petitioner
is able to perform his duties notwithstanding his medical condition.
8. Issue notice.
9. Notice is accepted by Ms. Richa Dhawan, the learned counsel
for the respondents.
10. She submits that the DME and RME have considered the
condition of the petitioner. The condition of the petitioner is auto
immune condition and, therefore, the petitioner has been rightly
declared „Unfit‟ for appointment. She submits that the reports of the
DME and the RME cannot be interfered by this Court.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
12. In Durga Singh (supra), this Court, in a similar case, has held
as under:-
9. Having considered the contentions raised we find
that the order dated 29th May, 2012 does require
review for it is not the case of the respondents that
Linecur stable vitiligo was classified a chronic skin
disease and, therefore, the petitioner was unfit.
Whether or not the said medical condition could be
classified and treated as a chronic disease and,
therefore, the petitioner was unfit would have to be
decided by the medical officer or the Review Medical
Board. It will be impossible for the Court to opine and
decide, whether the said medical condition would be a
disqualification. Pertinently, the medical certificate
relied by the petitioner dated 1st December, 2011 states
that the petitioner was medically fit for the said post. It
specifically records and holds that the finding that
petitioner was suffering from leucoderma was an error
of judgment. Moreover, the clause relating to medical
review states that there should be a possibility of error
of judgment. The word 'possibility' cannot be ignored
and is of significance. The final finding on fitness or
unfitness is to be given by the Review Medical Board.
10. Possibly, the petitioner at that time of hearing was
not prepared to argue and make submission whether
the medical condition Linecur stable vitiligo is a
chronic skin disease or not, as the said aspect had not
been examined by the respondents i.e. the medical
officer or the Review Medical Board.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we feel that there is an
apparent error in the order dated 29th May, 2012 which
justifies review as there is no opinion or formation of
belief that the medical condition " Linecur stable
vitiligo " would fall in the category of 'chronic skin
disease'. Till the said finding or opinion is given by the
medical officer or the Review Medical Board of the
respondents, the question of fitness cannot be decided.
The petitioner's medical fitness was required to be
considered by the Review Medical Board."
13. As is evident from the above, before declaring the petitioner
„Unfit‟, the RME had referred the petitioner to a Specialist
Dermatologist, who, vide his Report dated 13.12.2024, had inter alia
opined that the condition suffered by the petitioner does not affect his
physical and personal activities. The petitioner is also working as an
STF commando at present. The RME does not appear to have
considered these factors. It also has not considered whether the
condition of the petitioner can be described as a "Chronic Skin
Disease".
14. In view of the above, we direct that the petitioner be re-
examined by a freshly constituted RME, which must not contain the
members who were part of the earlier DME and/or RME, and which
must also include a Specialist-Dermatologist, especially to consider if
the condition of the petitioner can be described as a "Chronic Skin
Disease" or would affect the performance of service by him.
15. This exercise must be completed by the respondents within a
period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall be given at least
three days advance notice for appearing before the Medical Board so
constituted by the respondents pursuant to the present Order.
16. In case, the petitioner is declared fit for appointment, the
selection process of the petitioner shall be continued accordingly.
17. With the above direction, the petition, along with pending
application, is disposed of.
18. Dasti.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 15, 2025
SU/SK/IK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
