Delhi High Court
Rahul Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 554/2025
RAHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arjun Panwar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Mimansak Bhardwaj, SPC
with Mr.Rishav Dubey, GP and
Ms.Vidya Mishra, Adv. for
UOI
Mr.Prahlad Devenda, SI, CISF
& Mr.G. S. Rathore, AC, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 2510/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 554/2025 & CM APPL. 2509/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Reports of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME'), dated
16.12.2024, and the Review Medical Examination (in short, 'RME'),
dated 19.12.2024, 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
Genital Vitiligo.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Impugned RME itself had referred the petitioner for an examination
by a specialist Dermatologist at the VMCC & Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi, who vide Report dated 19.12.2024, had declared the
petitioner fit for duty. He submits that the petitioner is presently
working as a Constable (General Duty) and in the course of his
service, has been subjected to regular medical examination and found
fit for duty.
4. He submits that post the rejection, the petitioner has got himself
re-examined at the VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, on
20.12.2024, when again, it was reported that the condition suffered by
the petitioner is a benign skin condition and will not interfere with his
duties. He also refers to the report of the MIOT International Hospital,
Chennai, which is a hospital on the panel of the CISF, which again
opined that his condition was noted only after the circumcision
surgery and that he has no similar lesions elsewhere on the body and
is fit for regular duties.
5. Referring to Chapter 6 Clause 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for
Medical Examination Test (MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG &
AR (in short, 'Medical Guidelines'), he submits that only a 'chronic
skin disease' can be a ground for rejection, whereas the condition
suffered by the petitioner has been there for the last ten years and has
not been spreading, therefore, is not chronic but rather stable in nature.
6. Issue notice.
7. Notice is accepted by Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj on behalf of the
respondents.
8. He submits that before declaring the petitioner as 'Unfit', the
RME had referred the petitioner to a Dermatologist, who had opined
that the petitioner is suffering from 'Genital Vitiligo', which is a
chronic skin disease and, therefore, is a ground for rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner. He submits that, therefore, the Impugned
Reports of the DME and RME cannot be interfered with.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
10. In Durga Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2017:DHC:3658-
DB, which involved a similar issue, this Court, taking note of Clause
6(19) of the Medical Guidelines, 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.
12. Accordingly, we allow the present review
application and direct the respondents to
constitute a Review Medical Board. In view of
the lapse of time, it will be open to the
respondents to completely re-examine the
medical fitness of the petitioner, if it is
permitted and mandated as per law. Learned
counsel for the review petitioner has consented
to the same. The aforesaid exercise would be
completed within three months from the date
copy of this order is received."
11. In the present case as well, though the petitioner does not
dispute that he is suffering from 'Genital Vitiligo', he submits that the
same would not, in any manner, affect the discharge of his duties and
that his condition is stable. These issues, including whether 'Genital
Vitiligo' can be said to be a 'Chronic Skin disease', are to be
determined by medical experts.
12. Following the Judgment of this Court in Durga Singh (supra),
we, therefore, direct the respondents to constitute a fresh Medical
Board to re-examine the petitioner, within a period of three weeks
from today. The Medical Board must include a Dermatologist. The
Medical Board, however, should not be constituted of the doctors who
were already part of the Impugned DME or RME.
13. 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.
14. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Dasti.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 16, 2025/sg/IK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
