Ms. Jaya vs Union Of India

C. Hari Shankar, J.

This writ petition seeks a direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as successful in the candidature for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces “CAPFs” for women as held in 2024.

The petitioner has been disqualified on the ground that she is anaemic.

The Detailed Medical Examination “DME” which initially assessed the petitioner, found her to be suffering from anaemia. Admittedly, at that time, the petitioner’s haemoglobin count was 9.7 gm%.

The prescribed haemoglobin count for being eligible for recruitment as Sub Inspector to the Delhi Police/CAPFs is admittedly 10 gm%.

Paras 2 and 3 of the Review Medical Examination “RME” report finds the petitioner unfit in the following terms:

“2. Brief of Review Medical Examination & finding there of

1) HB -11.3 gm%

Abnormal PBS showing immature cells and myeloblasts physician opinion will required frequent hospital visits in view of abnormal

Haematological reports (immature cells myeloblasts), (PBS report attached).

Final Opinion

(a) (UNFIT)

(b) Unfit on account of…………..due to abnormal PBS (report attached, (medicine specialists opinion attached).”

There is, therefore, a clear discrepancy between the assessment of the petitioner in the DME and the RME. The petitioner’s haemoglobin count, in the DME, was below the cut off of 10 gm%. However, her haemoglobin count in the RME is 11.3 gm%.

Mr. Mishra, learned CGSC for the respondent submits that though the haemoglobin count of the petitioner was above the cut off of 10 gm%, the RME notes other abnormalities in the petitioner’s blood report.

The said abnormalities find no place in the DME report.

We have already taken a view in our decision in Staff Selection Commission v Aman Singh 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in KM Priyanka v UOI 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1851 that, where there is a discrepancy between the DME and the RME findings, the candidate would be entitled to be assessed by a fresh Medical Board.

We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be assessed by a fresh Medical Board to be constituted by the R&R Hospital. The Medical Board would also include a haematologist. Before the Medical Board is conducted, one more blood report would be obtained from the petitioner.

We also direct that, in case, any further studies are required to be undertaken in order to assess the suitability of the petitioner for recruitment, they should be undertaken before a final view is provided by the medical board. For this purpose, let the petitioner present herself before the Medical Superintendent of R&R Hospital on 22 November 2025 at 11 am.

The Medical Superintendent would direct the petitioner to the concerned Department/Specialist/Board in order for evaluation of the petitioner.

We also request that the decision on the medical examination be taken within a period of one week from the date of the petitioner’s assessment and communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

Should the petitioner found to be meeting the requisite medical standards, her candidature would be further processed in accordance with law.

Needless to say, should the petitioner continued to remain aggrieved, her rights in law would remain reserved.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.