Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Km Lavi on 15 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 3025/2025
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with
Mr.Shivam Tiwari, Ms.Urmila
Sharma, Ms.Deepika Kalra and
Ms.Venni Kakkar, Advs.
versus
KM LAVI .....Respondent
Through: Ms.Esha Mazumdar, Mr.Setu Niket,
Mr.Ankit Chauhan and Ms.Muskan
Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
2. The additional documents are taken on record.
W.P.(C) 3025/2025& CM APPL. 14313/2025
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'learned
Tribunal') in O.A. No. 3419/2024, titled Km Lavi v. Staff Selection
Commission & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein
with the following directions:
"We have considered the rival contentions, we
note that all the objections raised by
applicants have been considered and rejected
by the Tribunal earlier. For the sake of
brevity, we do not repeat them herein.
However, we note that two govt institutions
are giving divergent opinions on the medical
fitness of the applicant. Since it is the question
of employment, we feel that the applicant
deserves one chance. Given the above, the OA
is allowed and the respondents are directed to
allow the applicant to appear for the rereview
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."
4. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable
(Executive) (Female) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 01.09.2023
issued for the Recruitment of Constable (Executive) (Male and Female)
in the Delhi Police, 2023.
5. The Respondent successfully cleared the initial stages of
recruitment, however, in the Detailed Medical Examination ('DME'),
vide a Report dated 21.01.2024, she was declared 'unfit' for appointment
on the ground of "Hyperpigmentation below bilateral breast, around
nevus and groin area chronic extensive fungal dermatitis".
6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent applied for a Review Medical
Examination (RME). The Review Medical Board referred the respondent
for an examination by a Dermatologist at the Composite Hospital, CRPF,
Jharoda Kalan. By a Report dated 24.01.2024, the specialist opined as
under:
"Tinea Cruris et corporis"
7. Subsequent to the above Report, the RME, vide its Report
dated 24.01.2024 declared the respondent 'unfit' for appointment by
observing as follows:
"Tinea cruris et corporis"
8. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent filed the above O.A.
before the learned Tribunal, which, as noted hereinabove, has been
disposed of with the directions which have been reproduced
hereinabove.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was
a consistent opinion from both, the Detailed Medical Examination
and the Review Medical Examination Boards, in so far as the
respondent suffering from the fungal infection is concerned. The
opinion was based on the Report of the Dermatologist that the
respondent suffers from "Tinea cruris et corporis". He submits that
any defect or deformity is an absolute ground for declaring a
candidate 'unfit' for appointment.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent,
submits that no finding has been rendered, either by the DME or the
RME, regarding the unfitness of the candidate to discharge duties
because of the said medical condition. The learned counsel for the
respondent also pointed out to Para 24(2) of the Delhi Police
(Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, to submit that there is
no finding on whether the said condition is organic or contagious.
The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the reports
dated 29.01.2024 and 19.02.2024 of the Deep Chand Bandhu
Hospital, GNCTD, wherein only certain medicines were prescribed
to the respondent for her condition. Further, the learned counsel of
the respondent points out to the report of the Dr. Hegdewar
Aarogya Sansthan dated 12.07.2024, wherein it has been mentioned
after the respondent has undergone some treatment 'At present,
there is no tinea lesion'.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
12. At the outset, we would first note the relevant stipulation in
the Advertisement as far as the medical fitness of a candidate is
concerned. Clause 13.1 of the Advertisement, which deals with the
same is reproduced hereinunder:
"13.MedicalStandard:
13.1 The candidates should be in
sound state of health, free from defect/
deformity/ disease, vision 6/12 without
glasses both eyes, free from colour
blindness and without any correction
like wearing glasses or surgery of any
kind to improve visual acuity. Free from
defect, deformity or disease likely to
interfere with the efficient performance
of the duties. No relaxation is
allowed/permissible to any category of
candidates on this count."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. A reading of the above would show that the candidate has to
be free from defect/deformity/disease, "likely to interfere with the
efficient performance of the duties".
14. Even the stipulation in Rule 24(2) of the Delhi Police
(Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, states as follows:
"24(2) The medical examination shall be
conducted in accordance with the
instructions contained in Appendix XXX.
The medical officer shall test the eye
sight, speech and hearing of the
candidate, his freedom from physical
defects, organic or contagious disease,
his age or any other defects or tendency
likely to render him unfit for police
service. Candidate shall be rejected for
any disease or defect likely to render
them unfit for the duties of a police
officer at any stage."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. A reading of the above provision would also show that
though the Review Medical Board should specifically look for the
presence of, inter alia, organic or contagious disease likely to
render him unfit for police service, the primary concern of the
Medical Officer has to be whether this defect is likely to render the
candidate 'unfit' for the duties of a particular branch of service in
which he/she is desirous of being enrolled.
16. This Court while dealing with a similar case of rejection of a
candidature on ground of medical condition of Tinea cruris
(extensive), in WP(C) 13762/2024, titled Staff Selection
Commission v. Kuldeep [forming part of the Judgment in Staff
Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC Online
Del 7600], wherein the Respondent therein was referred to a
Specialist at Felix Hospital and the Consultant Dermatologist,
though prescribed certain medications for the same and opined that
the "respondent was medically 'fit' from Dermatology side for
duties", the RME thereafter declared the respondent 'unfit' for
appointment on the ground of Tinea Cruris (Extensive). The said
Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court highlighting that the
opinion of the dermatologist regarding the fitness of the respondent
ought to have been given weightage by the RME.
17. While there can be no dispute on the proposition that the
consistent view of the Medical Board and the Review Medical
Board is to be accorded due recognition and cannot be interfered
with in a casual manner, specially keeping in view the fact that the
Courts are not medical experts, at the same time, where the Medical
Board has not opined on the above vital aspect, the candidate would
require a further examination to opine on the same. We draw
reference in this regard to the Judgment of this Court in Staff
Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Ravi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
8048 which held as under:
"11. Though, therefore, on facts, Veena may
not be fully applicable, we deem it
appropriate, instead of entering into that
thicket, to direct the petitioners to refer the
matter once more to a Review Medical Board,
for a specific opinion as to whether the
condition of Dextrocardia, from which the
respondent suffers, renders him incapable is
"likely to interfere with the efficient
performance of his duties" as Constable
(Executive)."
18. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case,
we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned
Tribunal albeit for the reasons mentioned above.
19. The petition alongwith the pending application is,
accordingly, dismissed.
20. It is made clear that the decision of the Medical Board shall be
final and binding on both parties.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 15, 2025/sg/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
