Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commissioner & Ors. vs Mukeem Khan & Anr. on 22 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 14745/2024 & CM APPL. 61928/2024
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Farman Ali, SPC with
Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, GP &
Ms.Usha Jamwal, Adv.
versus
MUKEEM KHAN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Esha Mazumdar, Mr.Setu
Niket, Ms.Unni Maya S. &
Mr.Devansh Khatter, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 22.03.2024 read with the Order dated 08.04.2024 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as, „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 735/2024 and M.A.
No. 1237/2024, titled Mukeem Khan vs. Staff Selection Commission &
Ors., directing the petitioners herein to conduct a re-medical examination
of the condition suffered by the respondent herein by constituting a fresh
medical board.
2. The respondent had been declared unfit for appointment to the
post of Constable (Executive) (Male) in the Delhi Police Examination,
2023 by the report dated 29.01.2024 of the Review Medical Examination
(in short, „RME‟) Board, which found the respondent to be suffering
from "isolated systolic hypertension".
3. Earlier, the respondent had been declared unfit for appointment by
the Detailed Medical Examination Board as well, due to him suffering
from high blood pressure.
4. In our Order dated 30.11.2024, we had taken note of the fact that
before being declared „Unfit', the blood pressure of the respondent had
been recorded by the RME Board on at least 10 occasions over a period
of 24 hours. The learned counsel for the respondent had, however,
submitted that the Medical Board was under an obligation to have the
respondent admitted in hospital, and measure the blood pressure of the
respondent over a period of three days, before declaring him unfit for
appointment.
5. Today, she submits that while there are no specific medical
guidelines to this effect as far as the Delhi Police is concerned, the
„Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police
Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs‟ applicable to the Central
Armed Police Forces makes it obligatory for the Medical Board to have
the candidate admitted in a hospital before giving their final opinion. We
may quote from the guidelines as under:-
7. Following examples are cited for the
guidance of Review Medical Board:-
xxxxx
e) For candidates who have been rejected on
the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should
be admitted/hospitalised by the Board before
giving their final opinion regarding the
candidate's fitness or otherwise. The
hospitalization report should indicate whether
the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature
due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to
any organic disease. In all such cases X-ray
and electro-cardiographic examinations of
heart and blood examinations like
cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc,
tests should also be carried out."
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
7. As far as hypertension is concerned, taking note of the fact that
there can be „white coat syndrome‟ suffered by a candidate at the time of
his selection, the medical guidelines applicable to the Central Armed
Police Forces specifically provide for hospitalization of the candidate
and other tests being conducted for the candidate who is found to be
suffering from hypertension so that a conclusive opinion on the same can
be rendered. While the same guidelines may not be applicable to the
Delhi Police, however, in our opinion, the same would form the right
basis for declaring a candidate unfit for appointment, if such candidate is
found to be suffering from hypertension. In this regard we may refer to
the Judgment of this Court in Prashan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.,
2023:DHC:5387-DB.
8. In view of the above, and as it is not shown by the petitioners that
the above procedure was followed in the case of the respondent, we find
no merit in the present petition. The same, along with the pending
application, is accordingly dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 22, 2025/rv/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
