AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
“8.1To quash and set-aside the medical report dated 19.9.2017 whereby the applicant has been declared medically 'Unfit' and to further direct the respondents that applicant be subjected to review medical by Medical Board and if found fit then the applicant be given appointment to the post of Constable(Driver) in Delhi Police with all consequential benefit including seniority, promotion and pay & allowance.
8.2Quash and set the Order dated 29.04.2015 and show cause notice dated 30.03.2015. Or/and
(ii). Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present matter constitutes the second round of litigation between the parties. In the first round of litigation, this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed in OA No. 1813/2015 along with the batch matters, made certain observations with regard to the applicant’s case. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under:-
“9.In this light of the matter, we are of the view that the OAs deserve to partly succeed. We are not directing a third medical examination. However, the appellate medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi should be held afresh and the candidates considered also keeping in view the functional requirements of the post in question. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequences, either way, will follow.”
Learned counsel submits that the said observations are binding upon both sides and are required to be adhered to in their true letter and spirit.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. He was subjected to medical examination by a Medical Board comprising the following Orthopaedic specialists: 1. Dr. B. Kanhar, Consultant Orthopaedics and HOD, Orthopaedics Department, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital – Chairman; 2. Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Specialist Orthopaedics, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital – Member; and 3. Dr. Navneet Goel, Specialist Orthopaedics, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital – Member. The Medical Board, upon examination of the applicant, recorded the following observations:
“2.Ashish Kumar (OBC) Category Roll No. 800647 OA No. 1814/2015. Amputation through Distal Phalanx (Lt.) Middle Finger. X-ray (14915) dated 16/9/17 shows amputation distal phalanx of middle finger (prox. 1/3 stump). As per guidelines, loss of deformity of finger should not be overlooked. Hence consider UNFIT.”
According to learned counsel, the Medical Board, however, did not examine the applicant with reference to the functional requirements of the post, as specifically directed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant submitted a representation dated 27.01.2026 against the opinion of the Medical Board. In the said representation, the applicant also relied upon Ground “G” at page 31 of the Original Application, which reads as under:
“G. Because the applicant has not been medically examined on the point of functional requirements and abilities towards efficient discharge of duties of the post.”
In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 4307/2017, Kavinder Singh v. SSC & Ors., decided on 03.01.2023. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:-
“7.In order to decide this O.A. certain facts need to be reiterated. The disease in question namely white patches/vitiligo patches on glans (Penis) does not find place in the list of diseases, prescribed by the SSC, that disqualify a candidate. It is imperative to note that the applicant while suffering from the disease is efficiently discharging his services with the ITBP which is also under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, who have issued the above mentioned guidelines relied upon by the respondents. Secondly, it is evident from paragraph 25 of the counter reply that the respondents have travelled beyond the advice of the medical board and have stated the following “Vitiligo is a chronic disease which can spread to other parts of the body. Vitiligo may also result in Psychologial stress due to the affected person being stigmatized which will adversely interfere with the efficient performance of the duties.” The medical board never advised that the disease can spread to other parts and may also result in psychological stress as the affected person will be stigmatized which will adversely interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. In fact, the medical board has just suggested that since the applicant is suffering from Vitiligo he was unfit for the said selection. Additionally, it is observed that as per the scheme of examination the medical is to be conducted by the Composite Hospital BSF, Jalandhar Cantt., Punjab wherein against that order the applicant had filed an appeal. The said appeal has been disposed of by a duly constituted medical board that maintained the report by the first board. This particular statement “Vitiligo is a chronic disease which can spread to other parts of the body. Vitiligo may also result in Psychologial stress due to the affected person being stigmatized which will adversely interfere with the efficient performance of the duties.” does not find mention in the report given by either of the two authorities. Therefore, this goes beyond the purview of Central Administrative Tribunalthe scheme of examination itself more so words like “MAY” are based on assumptions that cannot be permitted. The Guidelines for Recruitment of Medical Examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles revised in May, 2015 are for recruitment to CAPF and the applicant is already working in one of the CAPF organizations, that is, ITBP, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the applicant does not fulfill the medical requirements under these Rules is not tenable and therefore cannot sustain.”
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the submissions contained in the counter affidavit, particularly paragraph 11, which reads as under:-
“11.That the medical examination of candidates is conducted in view of the instructions contained in Rule 24 & Appendix-XXX of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. Rule 24 (2) & (3) which reads as under:-
"(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 effects, 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.
(3). The appointing authority may themselves reject candidates whose general standards of physique and intelligence are not satisfactory. Only those candidates shall be sent for medical examination who measure upto the requisite physical standards" Further, Para (K) of Appendix of the said rules reads as follows:-
Para (K) The medical officer will reject a recruit for any disease or defect which is likely to render him unfit for the duties of the particular branch of the service in which he is desirous of being enrolled. Central Administrative TribunalNote : The following points should not be over looked:-
(i)Glandular swelling and enlarged thyroid. (ii) Prominance of eyes, squint, longstanding trachoma, nebulai or leucomata pannus.
(iii)Polypus of nose, perforated plate, tonsils, adenoids.
(iv)Insufficient sound teeth for efficient mastication, severe pyorrhea.
(v)Loss or deformity of fingers, flat feet, hammer toes with painful corns or bursae on the dersum of toes. Halux valgus, halux rigidus, knock-knee, deformity of chest and joints, abnormal curvature of the spine.
(vi)In vererate, cutaneous disease, fistualic condylemata, haemorrhoids prolasusani, varix or vari-cocole, undescended testicle, techvcarida. Moreover, the candidate was declared 3rd time medically unfit on account of "Amputation through distal phalanx (Lt.) middle finger" which is a physical deformity. As the candidate is not physically fit and is suffering from physical deformity, hence, this OA is required to be dismissed on this particular grounds.”
Learned counsel submits that the applicant was subjected to medical examination on 28.01.2014, thereafter to Review Medical Examination (RME) on 16.01.2015 and, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, was again examined on 19.09.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3332/2024, Mohit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, decided on 27.08.2024, which was subsequently modified by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 in W.P.(C.) No. Central Administrative Tribunal2268/2025, Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Mohit Kumar.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3332/2024, Mohit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr., decided on 27.08.2024, wherein the applicant therein was a candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and had been declared medically unfit on account of deformity of the left-hand little finger. The said decision was subsequently modified by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C.) No. 2268/2025, Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Mohit Kumar, decided on 21.02.2025. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the direction for re-examination by a fresh Medical Board and directed the respondents to take a decision as to whether the deformity in the little finger of the left hand, in any manner, impeded the candidate’s functioning as a Constable in Delhi Police or rendered him unfit for appointment on that ground.
The aforesaid decision is of relevance to the controversy before us. The question is not merely the existence of a deformity or medical condition, but whether the same has any bearing upon the candidate’s ability to discharge the functional duties attached to the post for which he seeks appointment. In the present case, the applicant’s specific grievance is that, despite the observations/directions made by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, his case has not been assessed with reference to the functional requirements of the post of Constable (Executive).
Having regard to the nature of the post and the specific grievance raised by the applicant, we are of the considered view that the applicant’s case requires an assessment with reference to the functional requirements of the post. The Medical Board, while recording the applicant as unfit, was required to consider whether the condition noticed in his case actually impedes his ability to efficiently discharge the duties attached to the post. The earlier directions of Central Administrative Tribunalthis Tribunal are required to be given effect to in their true letter and spirit.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to have the applicant assessed by the Medical Board, which shall render a specific opinion with regard to the functional requirements of the post of Constable (Driver) and determine whether the condition noticed in the applicant’s case, in any manner, impedes his ability to efficiently discharge the duties attached to the said post.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the event the applicant is found functionally fit and otherwise eligible for appointment, the respondents shall take consequential action and issue an offer of appointment to him in accordance with the applicable rules.
The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.