Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 29 May, 2025
1
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 726/2024
Reserved on: 15.05.2025
Pronounced on: 29.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Sandeep Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh,
R/o VPO-Lumb, Tehsil - Barrut,
Dist - Baghpat (UP), Pin - 250611,
(Aged about 43 Years),
(Group - 'C'),
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.) ( Male).
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission (Hdqrs.),
Through its Chairman,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110504.
3. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs.,
(New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
By Advocates: Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Ram Kawar Dhillon)
2
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the instant OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) quash and set aside impugned medical report of applicant issued on 27.01.2024 (placed at Annexure A/1) and
(b) direct the respondents to further consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in accordance with his merit position
(c) If need be, the applicant be subjected to re-medical examination at any Govt. Hospital of high repute.
(d) accord all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits
(e) award costs of the proceedings
(f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents for filling up the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male). The applicant was successful in the relevant examination and as required, he underwent Physical Endurance Test and Medical Test. On 21.01.2024, the applicant was declared 'unfit' by the Detailed Medical 3 Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 Examination (DME) Board on grounds of Over Weight, Hyper Tension and Hallux Valgus. Thereafter, the applicant was re-examined by the Review Medical Examination (RME) Board on 27.01.2024, which opined that the applicant does not have 'Hyper Tension and Hallux Valgus' but unfit on account of 'Over Weight'. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA challenging the impugned medical report dated 27.01.2024 of the RME Board. 2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the advertisement for the post in question, there was no mention of minimum weight in the physical and medical requirement column. However, still the respondents have declared the applicant 'Unfit'.
2.2. Learned counsel argued that the applicant is not overweight and to substantiate this argument, learned counsel submitted that the applicant got himself medically examined from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, New Delhi on 13.02.2024 and the Sr. Medical Officer of the said Hospital, after duly examining the applicant, certified that his weight is 79 Kilograms and hence, well within the requisite limit. 4
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 2.3. Learned counsel further argued that the reason of medical unfitness is non-existent and wrong and the respondents are not following the principles of fairness and transparency. Further, learned counsel submitted that even the medical reports dated 21.01.2024 by the DME Board and 27.01.2024 by the RME Board are contradictory to each other.
2.4. Learned counsel argued that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SSC & Ors. vs. Aman Singh 2024 SCC Online Del 7600 on all fours. Learned counsel added that in the present case, the advertisement does not mention the BMI or the acceptable weight as per the height of the candidates anywhere in the advertisement. There are no guidelines or reference to even the RRs that would clarify the acceptable BMI. Hence the respondents have acted beyond their guidelines and changed the Rules of the game after the game and begun, The Hon'ble High Court in Aman Singh (supra) held as under:
5
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 "...iv) The situations in which a Court can legitimately interfere with the final outcome of the examination of the candidate by the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board are limited, but well-defined. Some of these may be enumerated as under:
(a) A breach of the prescribed procedure that is required to be followed during examination constitutes a legitimate ground for interference. If the examination of the candidate has not taken place in the manner in which the applicable Guidelines or prescribed procedure requires it to be undertaken, the examination, and its results, would ipso facto stand vitiated.79 This follows from the well- established principle, enunciated in Taylor v Taylor. (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and subsequently followed by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases including State of UP v Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 that, where the statute, or the law, requires an act to be done in a particular manner, that act has to be done in that manner alone and in no other, all other modes of doing the act being necessarily forbidden
(f) If there are applicable Guidelines, Rules or Regulations governing the manner in which Medical Examination of the candidate is required to be conducted, then, if the DME or the RME breaches the stipulated protocol, a clear case for interference is made out..."
2.5. Learned counsel further argued that there is clear inconsistency between the report of the DME Board & RME Board inasmuch as the BMI with 9 kilograms overweight during DME is mentioned as 28.7 and during RME mentioned as 25. The Hon'ble High Court in Aman Singh (supra) held as under:
"...(b) If there is a notable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME, or the Appellate Medical Board, interference may be justified..." 6
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present case revolves around the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police. The applicant had successfully cleared the Computer Based Test conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), thereby progressing to the next stage of the selection process. However, during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) conducted on 23.01.2024, the applicant was deemed medically unfit for the post in question. The medical examination revealed three primary concerns: Hallux valgus, Hypertension, and overweight. As a result of these findings, the applicant was not considered fit for the demands of the Constable role, which requires a high level of physical fitness and endurance.
3.1. The applicant's medical unfitness was confirmed by a Review Medical Examination (RME) conducted by a Medical Board consisting of senior doctors. Although the RME cleared the applicant of Hallux valgus and Hypertension, it confirmed that the applicant was indeed overweight, with a BMI of 28%. Consequently, the applicant was once again 7 Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 declared medically unfit and not issued an Offer of Appointment.
3.2. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant's medical condition made him unsuitable for the post of Constable, which requires a high level of physical fitness and endurance.
3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant subsequently obtained a private medical examination report on 13.02.2024, which contradicted the findings of the DME and RME. However, learned counsel disputed the validity of this private medical examination report, citing concerns about its credibility and relevance. Learned counsel contended that the private medical examination was conducted by the applicant himself, outside of the official recruitment process, and therefore lacked credibility.
3.4. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the present case is governed by relevant rules and regulations, including Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022 of the Delhi Police and the Recruitment Notice dated 01.09.2023. These 8 Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 rules and regulations outline the medical standards and requirements for the post of Constable, including the need for a high level of physical fitness and endurance. 3.5. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of Aman Singh (supra) relied upon by the applicant is not based on the subject of 'Over Weight'. Rather, the case of the respondents is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar v UOI WP (C) No. 65/2024 dated 27.11.2024, which provides a relevant legal precedent for resolving the present case.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case, we would draw the following analysis:
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. We have to re-examine the case of the applicant by virtue of remand order passed in Aman (supra) in terms of directions contained in para 10.38 (iv) of the directions, 9 Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 more specifically para(s) 10.38 (iv) (b) and (f) and (vi) thereto.
5.2. It is not in dispute that the applicant was rejected on the ground of 'Over Weight'. A perusal of the records would reveal that the Competent Authority overlooked the following aspects:-
(i) The applicant applied in ex-servicemen category.
(ii) The applicant qualified various stages of examination, i.e., computer based test, physical endurance test and measurement test.
(iii) The applicant completed 1600 metre in 6 minutes.
(iv) The applicant completed 14ft long jump.
(v) The applicant completed 3.9.ft high jump.
(vi) It is only after successful completion of physical standards, the applicant was called for medical examination.
(vii) The DME was conducted on 21.01.2024, wherein the applicant was declared medically unfit on three counts, i.e., Over Weight, Hypertension and Hallux Valgus. 10
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024
(viii) In RME, the applicant was declared medically "unfit"
only on account of being "overweight".
(ix) There appears to be inconsistency between the DME & RME as BMI with 9 kgs overweight during DME is mentioned as 28.7 whereas the same is referred as 25 in RME.
5.3 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 890/2023 titled Rakshit Shivam Prakash Vs Union Of India and Anr decided on 02.08.2024 (2024 INSC 569), after the medical examination, the applicant therein was declared to be 'temporarily unfit', due to his Body Mass Index (BMI) being 31.75, which is higher than the prescribed standard of 30 BMI. The Hon'ble Apex Court partly allowed the Writ Petition observing as under :-
13. The case of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy may not be identical but life being what it is, one commonality is in the fact that Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy also missed the medical re-examination and his prayer, similar to that of the Writ Petitioner, was accepted by the High Court; and this Court did not interfere with the Order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, when Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy was granted relief by this Court, he was 38 years old and had exhausted all his attempts for Civil Services Exams. The petitioner is 35 years old, and he too has exhausted all his attempts.
14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to grant a limited relief. This will be to direct the respondents to re-schedule the re-medical test that was to be conducted on 14.07.2015, which the petitioner unfortunately missed. 11
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024
15. At the same time considering the fact that the original re-medical examination was to happen in 2015 and almost a decade has passed by, we direct that in the event the petitioner qualifies in the medical re- examination, he shall neither claim appointment in the 2014 Batch, nor will he be entitled to seniority in the Batch in which he could be appointed. We also clarify that, upon clearing the re-medical, if he is to be given appointment, his services shall commence from the date of the appointment. This is an exceptional case in which we have exercised our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and as such the present decision shall not be treated as a precedent in any case.
16. For the reason stated above, we partly allow this Writ Petition and direct the respondents to call the petitioner for a re-medical test within a period of four weeks."
5.4 The recruitment advertisement and Recruitment Rules (RRs) have not been brought on record to establish the acceptable weight standards in relation to height or Body Mass Index (BMI). However, the applicant got himself medically examined at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, New Delhi on 13.02.2024, which revealed that his weight was within the permissible limits for his height. Furthermore, the applicant should have been given an opportunity to appeal to the Appellate Medical Board within thirty days, which was not provided. In the Civil Services Selection process, a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or less is mandatory. The 43-year-old applicant, hailing from the ex-
servicemen quota, brings discipline and experience beneficial for organized services like the Delhi Police. 12
Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 Notably, neither the DME nor the RME determined whether the applicant's overweight condition was curable or not. This omission is crucial, as it raises the possibility that the applicant could be deemed 'temporarily unfit' and required to provide a re-medical fitness certificate within a stipulated timeframe from the date of being declared 'temporarily unfit'.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In light of the above, we quash and set aside the respondent's decision/impugned order dated 27.01.2024 rejecting the applicant's candidature due to being overweight. Accordingly, we direct the respondents that the applicant be given an opportunity to appear before the Medical Board, as per the directions contained in Aman Singh (Supra), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the Medical Board declares the applicant medically fit, the respondents shall offer him appointment, subject to police verification, with all notional benefits, including seniority, pay scale, and consequential 13 Item No.1 (C-5) O.A. No. 726/2024 benefits, except for actual salary for the period he has not worked.
6.2. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6.3. The O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/