Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 529/2025
SUNIL KUMAR MEHTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Himanshu Gautam, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Prajesh Vikram Srivastava,
SPC with Mr.Bharat Singh, GP
Mr.Raj Kumar, AC/CISF,
Mr.P. Devenda SI/CISF,
Mr.Amit Kumar, SI/CISF and
Mr.Rahul Sinha, SI/CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 529/2025 & CM APPL. 2446/2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Reports of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME') dated
09.12.2024, and the Review Medical Examination (in short, 'RME')
dated 13.12.2024, 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 (in short,
'LDCE-2022' on the ground of him being found to be suffering from
'Distal Phalanx Contractive Deformity'.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Clause 9
(VII) (3) (c) of the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test
(MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG& AR (in short, 'Medical
Guidelines'), submits that deformity of the fingers or hand can be a
ground for rejection of a candidature only if it impairs normal
functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree so as
to interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties. He
submits that in the present case, the Impugned DME and the RME
have not formed such an opinion before declaring the petitioner unfit
for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner is already working as Constable ('GD') with the
Central Industrial Security Force, and has been regularly declared to
be in 'SHAPE-1' category in his Annual Medical Examinations.
3. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the
Judgment of this Court in Manjit Kumar vs. Union of India,
2023:DHC:8850-DB.
4. Issue notice.
5. Notice is accepted by Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the
present case, the RME, before rendering its Impugned Report, had
referred the petitioner to specialist Orthopaedician who had also
reported the petitioner to be suffering from 'Distal Phalanx
Contractive Deformity'. He submits that therefore, the petitioner was
rightfully declared 'Unfit' for appointment.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
8. With regards to the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is already working as a Constable ('GD')
with the CISF, the same, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1583, may not have much bearing so far as the Medical
Examination of the petitioner for the LDCE-2022 in question is
concerned,
9. Clause VII(3)(c), Chapter 9 of the Medical Guidelines, referred
hereinabove, reads as under:
"VII. UPPER EXTREMITIES:
xxx
3. Hand and fingers.
xxx
(c) Scars and deformities of the fingers or
hand that impair normal functioning/free
movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree
as to interfere with the satisfactory
performance of combatised duties, are
disqualifying."
10. A reading of the above would show that a mere deformity of the
fingers or hand would not be a ground to declare a candidate 'Unfit'
for appointment, unless such deformity impairs the normal
functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree as to
interfere with the satisfactory performance of the combatised duty of a
candidate. In the present case, the Impugned DME and RME reports
do not record satisfaction to this condition.
11. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be re-examined by a
Medical Board to be constituted by the Army Hospital (R & R). We
request the Medical Superintendent, Army Hospital (R & R) to
constitute a Medical Board for the same, which must include a Senior
Orthopaedician, within a period of three weeks from today.
12. In case the petitioner is found 'Fit' for appointment, the further
process for his appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector
(Executive) be carried out by the respondents. However, in case the
petitioner is found 'Unfit' for appointment, his candidature would be
deemed to have been rejected.
13. With the above directions, the present petition alongwith the
pending application is disposed of.
14. Dasti.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 16, 2025/sg/IK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
