Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Puja Jakhar on 21 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5700/2025
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC,
Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Avd.
versus
PUJA JAKHAR
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 26023/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5700/2025 & CM APPL. 26022/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
„Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 1154/2024, titled Puja Jakhar v.
Commissioner of Police & Ors., allowing the said OA filed by the
respondent herein with the following direction:
"5. In view of the above submissions, the OA
is allowed and the respondents are directed to
allow the applicant to appear for the re-review
medical examination to be conducted by them
as per the directions issued by this Tribunal in
OA 1857/2024 and also in the present case, at
any other government hospital other than the
hospital where the Detailed Medical
Examination and Review Medical Examination
of the applicant were conducted."
3. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable
(Executive) Female in the Delhi Police Examination, 2023, pursuant
to the Advertisement/Notification issued by the petitioners herein on
01.09.2023. She was, however, declared „unfit‟ for appointment on
22.01.2024, by the Detailed Medical Examination („DME‟) Board, on
the grounds of "Rt TM perforation, Hearing" and "Burn scar on left
foot ? contracture".
4. As far as the ground of "Burn scar on left foot ? contracture" is
concerned, the Review Medical Examination („RME‟) Board in its
examination dated 27.01.2024, after obtaining an opinion from a
dermatologist, did not find the same to be made out. However, the
RME Board, after obtaining an opinion from an ENT, declared the
respondent „unfit‟ for appointment on the ground of "TM Perforation
central".
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opinion
of the DME Board and the RME Board have been interfered with by
the learned Tribunal merely on the basis that another Government
institution which gave a divergent opinion. He submits that the same
cannot be a ground for disregarding the opinion of the DME Board
and the RME Board, especially when the opinion of a specialist was
taken.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
7. This Court in Staff Selection Commission (Hdqrs) & Anr. v.
Jyoti Gupta, 2025:DHC:2630-DB, found that the Medical Board had
opined that perforation in the ear is only a temporary condition which
can be easily cured, and as held as under:
"13. It can be seen from the above that even
though the respondent was found to be
temporarily unfit, the entire process of medical
examination was completed within a period of
five days in a hasty manner, though the
medical guidelines applicable to the selection
process grants one month‟s time to a
candidate to appeal against the initial finding
of the Medical Board.
14. In Staff Selection Commission v. Aman
Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, this Court
has also considered the aspect of curability
and sufficient time being given to the
candidate for the said purpose if the rules so
permit. We quote from the said judgment as
under:
"10.38 In our considered opinion, the
following principles would apply:
xxx
(c) The aspect of "curability" assumes
significance in many cases. Certain
medical conditions may be curable. The
Court has to be cautious in dealing with
such cases. If the condition is itself
specified, in the applicable Rules or
Guidelines, as one which, by its very
existence, renders the candidate unfit,
the Court may discredit the aspect of
curability. If there is no such stipulation,
and the condition is curable with
treatment, then, depending on the facts
of the case, the Court may opine that the
Review Medical Board ought to have
given the candidate a chance to have his
condition treated and cured. That
cannot, however, be undertaken by the
Court of its own volition, as a Court
cannot hazard a medical opinion
regarding curability, or the advisability
of allowing the candidate a chance to
cure the ailment. Such a decision can be
taken only if there is authoritative
medical opinion, from a source to which
the respondents themselves have sought
opinion or referred the candidate, that
the condition is curable with treatment.
In such a case, if there is no binding
time frame within which the Review
Medical Board is to pronounce its
decision on the candidate's fitness, the
Court may, in a given case, direct a
fresh examination of the candidate after
she, or he, has been afforded an
opportunity to remedy her, or his,
condition. It has to be remembered that
the provision for a Review Medical
Board is not envisaged as a chance for
unfit candidates to make themselves fit,
but only to verify the correctness of the
decision of the initial Medical Board
which assessed the candidate."
15. Applying the above principle to the facts
of the present case, we find that the RME was
conducted almost immediately after the DME,
and had declared the respondent as
„temporarily unfit‟ without giving sufficient
time to the respondent to recover from her
condition. It is also an admitted fact that the
same hospital where the respondent had been
referred to for a specialist opinion and which
declared her as temporarily unfit, has later
opined that she is fit and does not suffer from
the condition for which she had been earlier
declared unfit for recruitment."
8. In the present case, from the medical record placed before us,
and for lack of expertise on this subject, we cannot state if the
condition of „Rt TM perforation, Hearing‟ suffered by the
respondent was only temporary in nature and/or was curable by a
minor procedure. We also cannot opine whether the respondent could
have been cured of the said condition if she had been given time by
the RME for the same.
9. However, applying the above ratio to the present case, we find
that the RME has also not considered the above aspects nor has it
considered if the respondent can be provided with enough time to cure
her condition before declaring her „unfit‟ for appointment. It also
appears that the respondent has subsequently gotten operated for the
said condition on 03.02.2024 at the Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
10. Even otherwise, on perusal of the record, multiple other
discrepancies have also come to light. It appears that while the DME
finds the respondent to be suffering from "Rt TM perforation,
Hearing" the RME has opined that the respondent is „unfit‟ on
account of "TM perforation central" without mentioning the ear in
which the said condition is prevalent. Additionally, it appears that the
ENT specialist report relied upon in the RME, while stating that a
perforation in the right ear was present, had further directed that a pure
tone audiometry to be conducted. The said audiometry report goes on
to provide a provisional diagnosis that the respondent in fact had
"Bilateral Normal hearing sensitivity". It appears that the RME report
has also not taken this observation into consideration.
11. Given the aforementioned, we do not find any merit in the
present petition. The petition, along with the pending applications, is
accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 21, 2025/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
