Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police & Ors vs Sandeep on 5 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla, Dharmesh Sharma
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5851/2025
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley CGSC with
Mr.Dev Pratap Shahi,
Mr.Varun Pratap Singh and
Mr.Yogya Bhatia, Advs.
versus
SANDEEP .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5851/2025AND CM APPL. 26731/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'learned Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1448/2024, titled Sandeep v.
Commissioner of Police & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the
respondent with the following directions:
"3. We find that the issue in the OA is fully
covered by the decision of the Tribunal in OA
No. 1029/2024. In the circumstances, this OA
is also disposed of with a direction to the
competent authority amongst the respondents
to conduct a fresh medical examination of the
applicant by way of constituting an
appropriate medical board in any government
medical hospital except the Hospital which has
already conducted the initial and the review
medical examination, within a period of four
weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."
3. In the instant case, the respondent was declared 'unfit' for the
appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) with the
Delhi Police by the Detailed Medical Examination Board (hereinafter
referred to as, 'DME') vide report dated 23.01.2024 on account of the
respondent suffering from the following:
"Fixed Extension deformity in distal
interphalangeal Joint of Right Little Finger"
4. The Review Medical Examination Board (hereinafter referred
to as , 'RME'), vide its report dated 31.01.2024, also declared the
respondent 'unfit' for appointment on the ground as under:
"FIXED EXTENSION DEFORMITY IN
DISTAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT OF
RIGHT LITTLE FINGER."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before
declaring the respondent 'unfit' for appointment, he had been referred
by the RME for an expert orthopedic opinion from the Composite
Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, and the Doctor there, by a
report dated 31.01.2024, opined that the deformity in the right little
finger is not acceptable. He further submits that these reports should
not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
7. At the outset, we may note that the present petition has been
filed with a delay of more than nine months. The learned Tribunal, as
noted hereinabove, had directed the petitioners to have the respondent
medically re-examined and appoint him if he is declared 'fit' within a
period of four weeks of the receipt of the copy of the said Impugned
Order. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches alone.
8. Even on merits, while we agree with the legal submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the consistent
view of the DME and the RME should not be lightly interfered with
by the learned Tribunal, in the present case, the respondent had
asserted that he had been released/discharged from the Indian Army
having been declared in the Shape-1 Medical Category.
9. Moreover, it can be seen that in the DME and the RME, and
even in the report of the Orthopedic, there was no clear finding that
the deformity suffered by the respondent in his right little finger was
likely to interfere with the effective performance of his duties as a
Constable, which was pre-requisite in order to declare a candidate
'unfit' for appointment as far as Clause 13.1 of the Advertisement
dated 01.09.2023 is concerned.
10. Keeping in view the above, and following the Judgment of this
Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. K M Manju,
2025:DHC:1685-DB, we find no merit in the present petition.
11. The petition along with the pending application is accordingly,
dismissed.
12. We, however, make it clear that above observations of ours
shall not influence the opinion of the medical board in the re-medical
examination of the respondent herein carried out in compliance with
the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
DHARMESH SHARMA, J
MAY 5, 2025
p/my/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
