Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Salman vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 22 March, 2024
1
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 823/2024, 920/2024, 760/2024, 776/2024,
1006/2024, 922/2024, 745/2024, 949/2024, 876/2024,
827/2024, 828/2024, 785/2024, 719/2024, 809/2024,
431/2024, 826/2024, 726/2024, 919/2024, 735/2024,
752/2024, 432/2024, 434/2024, 598/2024, 520/2024,
595/2024, 837/2024, 716/2024, 524/2024, 518/2024,
442/2024, 441/2024, 1208/2024, 1229/2024, 1233/2024,
1179/2024
Order reserved on: 18.03.2024
Order pronounced on: 22.03.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
O.A. No. 823/2024
Salman
Recruit constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 2230044093
Aged about 26 Years
S/o Sh. Vakil Ahmad
R/o Vill : Himmat Nagar Dehpa,
PO : Dehpa City Pilkhuwa,
Tehsil : Dholana,
Distt. Hapur, UP-245304
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh road, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
O.A. No. 920/2024
Yogendra Kumar
Recruit Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
2
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Roll No. 2218091710
Aged about 24 years
S/o Shri Rajvir Singh
R/o Vill : Kadarpur,
PO : Khabra,
Tehsil : Sikandrabad,
PS : Chandpur Kotwali,
Distt. Bulandshahr,
UP - 203203
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 760/2024
Vineet Kumar
Aged about 38 years
S/o Shri Gyanender Singh,
R/o Village Rasoolpur
Post Office Mour, Distt. Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh-202137
Mob: 8195002741
Email Id: [email protected]
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
3
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HỌ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
4. Central Reserve Police Force
Through Director General
Block No -1, C.G.O. Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.776/2024
Arun
Aged about 22 years
S/o Shri Tejbir
R/o VPO Kablana, Teh &
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124104
Uttar Pradesh-202391
Mob: 7357626330
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HỌ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
4. Border Security Force,
Block No. 10, Lodhi Estate,
4
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Lodhi Road, C.G.O. Complex,
New Delhi, Delhi -110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.1006/2024
Pavan Rajput
Recruit Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 3001095643
Aged about 27 years
S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh,
R/o VPO Dehtora Sikandra,
Distt. Agra, UP -282007
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.922/2024
Bipin Kumar
Recruit Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 3206003868
Aged about 24 years
S/o Shri Birendra Thakur
R/o VPO Ratnarh,
PS : Agiaon, Distt. Bhojpur,
Bihar -802203
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
5
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 745/2024
KM Pooja
D/O Sh Ramkesh Singh
R/O Village Bijnors
Tehsil Hasanpur
Distt Amroha
UP 244242
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station
New Delhi 110001
3. Addl Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment , Police headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
4. Border Security Force
Block No 10
Lodi Estate, Lodhi Road
CGO Complex, Lodi Colony
New Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 949/2024
Akshay Kumar
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Roll No 2218016045
Aged about 23 Years
6
OA No.823/2024 & batch
S/O Sh. Sanjay Naresh
R/O VPO Patla
Modinagar, Ghaziabad
UP 201204
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 876/2024
Sagar Sharma
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Roll No 2218077973
Aged about 23 Years
S/O Sh. Gajender Sharma
R/O House No 169
Gaushmahiuddenpur Chhatnaura
Babugarh,Hapur
UP 245101
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
7
OA No.823/2024 & batch
O.A. No. 827/2024
Rakesh Diwach
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Roll No 2201113913
Aged about 26 Years
S/O Sh. Deva Ram Diwach
R/O VPO Nandoli Mertiya
Tehsil Makrana
Distt Nagaur
Rajasthan 341520
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 828/2024
Aakash Raghuwanshi
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Roll No 6001053144
Aged about 23 Years
S/O Sh. Keshav Raghuwanshi
R/O Vill Muar
Tehsil Silwani
PO Muar Raisen
MP 464886
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
8
OA No.823/2024 & batch
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.785/2024
Sachin
S/O Karan Pal Singh
R/O Govindpura Haluwas
Bhiwani Haryana- 127021
....Applicant
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
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 719/2024
Sakshi
Roll No 2201370478
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Aged About 21 Years
S/O Sh.Hari Kishan Pal
R/O A 22, 3rd Floor
Pitampura, Delhi 110034
....Applicant
9
OA No.823/2024 & batch
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 809/2024
Bharat Singh Yadav
S/O Jai Ram Yadav
R/O Village Madaukhedi
Tehsil Mungol;I, Ashok Nagar
MP 473443
....Applicant
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
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.431/2024
Omkar
Aged about 24 Years
S/O Sh.Shobnath
10
OA No.823/2024 & batch
R/O Daunjara Gaurella Pendra Road
Bilaspur
Chattisgarh 495117
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
Behind Parliament Street Police Station
New Delhi 110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarter
Jai Singh Road
Behind Parliament Street Police Station
New Delhi 110001
4. Central Reserve Police Force
Through Director General
Block No- 1, CGO Complex
New Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.826/2024
Sameer Kumar
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 6001074137
Aged about 24 Years
S/O Sh. Mohan Lal
R/O VPO: Raipur
Tehsil: Gadarwara
Distt: Narsinghpur
MP- 487441
..Applicant
11
OA No.823/2024 & batch
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex
New Delhi 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
......Respondents
O.A. No.726/2024
Sandeep Kumar
S/O Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/O VPO Lumb, Tehsil-Barrut
Dist. Baghpat(UP), Pin 250611
....Applicant
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
Through its Chariman,
Block No 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504
3. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Hdqrs
Behind Parliament Street Police Station
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.919/2024
Sampat Devanda
Roll No. 2405143629
12
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Recruit Constable (Ex) in Delhi Police
Aged about 22 years
D/O Sh. Shreekishan Jat
R/O Devanda li Dhani Maheshwas,
PO Hirnoda, Tehsil : Phulera
Jaipurm Rajasthan-303338
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex
New Delhi 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi 110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.735/2024
Mukeem Khan
Aged about 22 years
S/o Nasruddin Khan
R/o Khailiya, Kalyanpur,
PO Khailiya, Distt. Bulandshahr,
Uttar Pradesh-202391
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HỌ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
13
OA No.823/2024 & batch
New Delhi-110001
4. Border Security Force,
Block No. 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Road,
C.G.O. Complex,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.752/2024
Ashif Ali
Aged about 24 years
S/o Shri Mushraf Ali
R/o Village More Khurd
Morkhurd, Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250404
Mob: 9084185989 ....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HỌ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
4. Central Reserve Police Force
Through Director General
Block No -1, C.G.O. Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
14
OA No.823/2024 & batch
O.A. No.432/2024
1. Punit Kumar
aged about 23 years
S/o Shri Sunder Pal,
R/o 196A, Gali No. 4, Vishwakarma Basti
Modinagar, Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201204
2. Gaurav
aged about 19 years
S/o Shri Pappu
R/o Vill- Rampur Ghoria, Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250401
3. Gaurav Sharavat
aged about 24 years,
S/o Shri Balraj Singh,
R/o Vill- Nooni Khera, Post-Ghatayan Jansath,
Dist.-Muzaffarnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-251314
4. Vipin Kumar
aged about 25 years
S/o Shri Munesh Kumar
R/o 1170, Lodhipur Sotawali, Garh Road
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh-245101
....Applicants
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HỌ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
15
OA No.823/2024 & batch
4. Central Reserve Police Force
Through Director General
Block No -1, C.G.O. Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.434/2024
Aman Siwach
Aged about 20 years
S/o Shri Krishan Kumar
R/o VPO Gorakhpur, Dist. : Fatehabad
Haryana -125047
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. ITBP
Through Dir. General
Block 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.598/2024
Anju
Aged about 23 years
D/o Shri Rajesh
R/o VPO Ismaila 9B,
Rohtak, Haryana- 124501
16
OA No.823/2024 & batch
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. BSF
Through Dir. General
Block 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 520/2024
Saloni
Aged about 19 years
D/o Shri Jiya Ram,
R/o VPO-Gangoli, Distt. Jind,
Haryana - 126113
....Applicant
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
17
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
Through Dir. General
Block 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 595/2024
Sanchit
Aged about 22 years
S/o Sh. Parmjeet
R/o H.No.110, Ward No. 4,
Devi Wara Mohalla, Near Chota
Sani Mandir Halwai Hatta Sonipat,
Haryana - 131001
....Applicant
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
18
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Through Director General
Block No. 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 837/2024
Ms. Rekha Parihar,
Age- 27 years,
D/o Amra Ram
R/o Sindhiyo Ki Dhaniya,
Rampura Batiyan, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan - 112001
Group ‗C' (Constable-Exe-Female)
Sub: Appointment
....Applicant
Vs.
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110003
2. The Commissioner of Police
Police headquarters, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110003
3. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 716/2024
Garima Bhimrot
Aged about 22 years
D/o Late Sh. Anup Bhimrot
R/o Vill: Mahuwa Kalan,
Post Mahuwa Khurd,
Distt : Alwar
Rajasthan - 301001
....Applicant
Vs.
19
OA No.823/2024 & batch
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
Through Dir. General
Block 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No.524/2024
Shalim Ali
S/o Ummed Ali
R/o VPO Kaserva, Tehsil Budhana
Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 251318
....Applicant
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
20
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
Through Dir. General
Through Director General
Block No-10, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 518/2024
Himanshu
Aged about 19 years
S/o Sh. Rajesh
R/o VPO-Khanda,
Distt: Sonipat
Haryana
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Central Reserve Police Force
Through Director General
Block No-1, C.G.O. Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
O.A. No.442/2024
Shubham Kumar Dabas
Aged about 25 years
21
OA No.823/2024 & batch
S/o Shri Suresh Veer,
R/o J-0609 Nilaya Greens NH-58,
Morta Meerut Road, Reliable Institute
Raj Nagar Extension Morta Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 201003
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
Block 10, H6QM+8V6
Lodhi Estate, Lodhi Rd,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi , Delhi 110003
...Respondents
O.A. No. 441 of 2024
Neelam Rani
Aged about 24 years
D/o Shri Ajmer Singh
R/o House No. 22, Main Bazar Gali
VPO Mangali, Jhara, Hisar,
Haryana- 125001
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
22
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi -110001
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II
Recruitment, Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi - 110001
4. Border Security Force
Through Director General
Block 10, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
...Respondents
Order reserved on: 20.03.2024
Order pronounced on: 22.03.2024
O.A. No. 1208/2024
Inderjeet
Recruit constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 3011067387
Aged about 25 Years
S/o Sh. Chhote Lal
R/o VPO :Porara,
Tehsil :Hasanpur,
Distt: Amroha,UP - 244255
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh road, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
Order reserved on: 19.03.2024
Order pronounced on: 22.03.2024
O.A. No.1179/2024
23
OA No.823/2024 & batch
1. Sumit Kumar
S/o Salek Chand
R/o Vill. Nangna Rathi
Post Sakoti Tanda, Meerut, U.P. - 250223
2. Gyanendra Kumar
S/o Shankar Nath
Vill. And Post. Gundharu
Bikapur Ayodhya,
Faizabad, U.P.- 2240204
....Applicants
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. Staff Selection Commission
Block No:12, Lodhi Rd, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi 110003
... Respondents
Order reserved on: 21.03.2024
Order pronounced on: 22.03.2024
O.A. No.1229/2024
Rahul Kumawat
Recruit constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 2201005451
Aged about 21 Years
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Kumawat
R/o Khoraniya Ki Dhani
Dhani Nagan Jobner, Distt: Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303328
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh road, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
O.A. No. 1233/2024
24
OA No.823/2024 & batch
Pradeep Kumar Saini
Recruit constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Roll No. 2201267290
Aged about 24 Years
S/o Sh. Brijanand Saini
R/o dhani Bankali,
VPO: Kakarana,
Tehsil: Udaipurwati,
Distt:Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan - 333055
....Applicant
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh road, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Anil Singal, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu
Niket, Mr. Ishan Singh, Ms. Ridhi Dua, Ms. Reny
For Applicant(s)
Chauhan for Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Mr. Puneet
Advocate : Rathi and Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh
Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Mr.
Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Rohit Gautam, Mr. Abhay,
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Ms. Sangeeta Rai, Mr. B.L.
Wanchoo, Mr. G.D. Chawla, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr.
Angh Bhushan Sharma, Mr. Ram Kawar Dhillon,
Mr. A.K. Singh, Ms. Reena Singh with Mr.
For
Gyanchand Meena, Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh, Mr
Respondent(s)
Trilok Singh Bisht, Mr. Ramjan Khan with Ms.
Advocate : Anchal Dhawan, Mr. Jagdish N. with Ms. Poonam
Puniya, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Meena Mehtani
Gupta, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr.Pradeep Kumar
Sharma,
Mr. U.Srivastava, Ms. Monika Bhargava, Mr. Ram
Kawar Dhillon, Mr. A.K.Singh
25
OA No.823/2024 & batch
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. The counsel for the respective parties do not dispute the facts and law involved in the present batch and in the case of Anjali vs. Staff Selection Commission, OA No.670/2024 decided on 11.03.2024 are one and the same, thereby implying that submissions made thereto would also be same.
2. For sake of brevity, we extract the observations and finding arrived at by the Co-Ordinate Bench in Anjali (supra), which are re-produced herein below:-
―At the outset, Shri R V Sinha, who has appeared on behalf of the SSC, states that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between SSC and Delhi police, the instant OA would be defended by the counsel representing Delhi Police. Accordingly, Learned counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3, Mr. Amit Yadav, shall represent Respondent No. 1, i.e., SSC as well.‖
3. Factual matrix, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant, is that the applicant has participated in the recruitment process initiated by the SSC, for the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2023. After having been successfully cleared the said examination, name of the applicant appeared in the list of provisionally selected candidates. Thereafter he was called for medical examination which was conducted by the Medical Board, and reviewed by a subsequent Medical Board, wherein 26 OA No.823/2024 & batch the applicant has been declared unfit for the medical condition as opined at page 19 annexure A1.
4. Aggrieved by the same, applicant has preferred the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s) :-
"A. Call for records;
B. Quash and set aside the impugned order/report dated 31/01/2024 C. Direct the Respondent No.1 to constitute an independent medical board to medically re-examine the Applicant;
D. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicants in the post of Constable (Exe.) with all consequential benefits including arrears etc;
E. Award cost of the proceedings; and F. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was declared unfit by the Medical as well as the Review Medical Board on the ground of ―defective distant vision‖. Thereafter the applicant has got herself examined by a Government Hospital, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, New Delhi, on 13.02.2024, whereby the Doctors at the said hospital have cleared her of the medical condition, opined by the medical board of the respondents. The report of the same is annexed at pages 55 & 56. The report by the said Government Hospital is contrary to the report of the Medical Board as well as the report of the Review Medical Board.
27
OA No.823/2024 & batch
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the OA and prays for two weeks' time to file reply. However, on instructions received from the respondents, he argues:
(i) That there is no provision of a further medical re-
examination after the Medical and the Review Medical Board. He places reliance on point 14.2 of the advertisement, which reads as under:
"The Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of Computer Based Examination and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. The candidates are advised to go through the requirements of essential qualifications, age, physical and medical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post. Copies of supporting documents will be sought at the time of Document Verification. When scrutiny is undertaken, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the decision of the Commission/ Delhi Police shall be final."
(ii) Intervention of the Tribunal would amount to an opinion on the judgment of the experts. The experts on the subject have already given a conclusive decision after examining the candidates and rightly rejected them.
(iii) Any intervention at this stage, would cause prejudice to the candidates who have not approached this Tribunal.
(iv) Since the respondents have followed the same in letter and spirit, the prayer sought for in the OA could not be extended to the applicant for conducting a re-medical examination after the Medical and Review Medical Board has examined the applicant. The same could not be claimed as a matter of right. The respondents are not obligated to re- examine the applicant. 28
OA No.823/2024 & batch
(v) The candidature of the applicant has rightly been rejected by the respondents placing reliance on the report of the doctors. He clarifies that those who are experts in the field have already conducted the medical examination, not once but twice and as the applicant has not been found fit, no appointment could be granted to her.
vi). Drawing strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3830/2019, the learned counsel argues that while deciding the said Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K M Priyanka Vs Union of India & Ors., 2020 SSC Delhi 1851. Para 8 of K M Priyanka (Supra) reads as under:
"8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces. In fact, the case of Priti Yadav (supra) also related to 'cubital valgus'. It is also to be noted that the specialists that the petitioner had consulted had also found that the petitioner suffered from 'cubital valgus' and therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards were not wrong."29
OA No.823/2024 & batch
vii). He states that consistently, the Courts have held that in absence of any provision for re-medical examination, and considering the nature of duties to be performed by the candidates in the Paramilitary Forces, Military Forces, Delhi Police and other disciplinary forces, the fitness of the candidates is to be examined at a higher degree and, therefore, the applicant could not be extended offer of appointment. He emphasizes that while pursuing an independent opinion from a Government Hospital, the candidates may or may not have informed the doctors conducting the medical examination that they are being considered for recruitment in a disciplined force. Delhi Police is a law enforcing agency and the job requires field duty, especially by the lower rung of the cadre, and the medical fitness cannot be compromised.
viii). It is a settled position of law that Judicial intervention could be invited only in two situations:
1. Wherever there is a violation of natural justice.
2. In any situation where one has been a judge to his own cause.
However, since in the present matter none of the two principles are applicable, no judicial intervention is called for.
ix) Learned counsel for the respondents draws further reference to WP (C) No. 4558/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sharvan Kumar Rai vs Union of India & Ors. which reads as under:
"6. Moreover, in the present case the private medical opinion taken by the petitioner on 14th June 2020 is also in consonance with the opinion of the Review Medical Board to the extent identifying pleural thickening with fibrotic lesions and hypoattenuation pattern in certain sections of the lungs of the petitioner. The difference between the opinion of the Review Medical Board and of the Private practitioner 30 OA No.823/2024 & batch consulted by the petitioner only is as to the lung capacity of the practitioner and in which respect, as aforesaid, the opinion of the respondents CRPF with whom the petitioner is to serve, is to be respected.
7. We have in judgment dated 22nd May 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 3237/2020 titled Dhiraj Milind Dhurve vs. UPSC, in the context of medical examination test in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and which includes respondents CRPF, held, that the candidates found medically unfit cannot seek a change of the terms subject to which they have taken the examination and which terms uniformly apply to all candidates. It was held that the principle of 'Rules of the Game cannot be changed after the game has begun' applies, with only a few of all those found medically unfit, who approach the court, being permitted another round of medical test.
8. We have also considered whether the present is a case of inconsistency between the report of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board. Though the petitioner himself has not pleaded that he was not suffering from a chest infection at the time of being examined by the Medical Board on 21st December, 2019, it is significant that there is a gap of more than four months between the Medical Examination and the Review Medical Examination and during which time an acute infection can be cured with medication. As per the Rules of the respondents CRPF, for applying for Review Medical Examination, the petitioner, along with the application for review, was required to file the Medical Certificate from a specialist medical practitioner of concerned field, as per the proforma prescribed. The petitioner has not produced before us, the Medical Certificate which must have been obtained before preferring the review petition. Therefrom also, adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner. The opinion of the private diagnostic centre approached as late as on 14th June, 2020 also confirms what has been found by the Review Medical Board, that is, 'pleural thickening with fibrotic lesions with hypoattenuation pattern of the lungs'.
9. We also do not agree that the certificate of medical unfitness of the petitioner is not in consonance with the guidelines supra. It is evident from Clause XV of the Guidelines reproduced herein-above that exercise induced bronchospasm and substantiated history of cough, wheeze etc. is a reason for rejection. Even qua tuberculosis, only those cases of treated tuberculosis are to be accepted as fit, where there is normal pulmonary function. It thus cannot be said that the medical unfitness found of the petitioner is not in consonance with the guidelines."31
OA No.823/2024 & batch
x) Once the medical has been conducted by the respondents and the same has been reviewed by a Board consisting of three doctors, the same cannot be interfered with, particularly in the absence of any malafide or bias alleged by the applicant against the board/ respondents while conducting these medical tests.
7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant draws strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 3387 of 2023 decided on 20.03.2023. She states that while deciding similar issue, where there was an opinion of Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board, the applicant got himself examined subsequently by a Government hospital and approached the respondents seeking re-medical examination. The Hon'ble High Court has allowed a Writ Petition stating that once there was an opinion of a Government Hospital after the Review Medical Board, the candidature of the applicant could be re- examined. She draws strength from the judgment referred to by the respondents Sharvan Kumar Rai vs Union of India & Ors. (supra) in Writ Petition No. 4558/2020 which was decided on 27.07.2020. She submits that the applicant therein was suffering from pneumonia and between the four months' period of medical by the Review Medical Board this condition was reversed. However, the applicant could not produce the certificate 32 OA No.823/2024 & batch supporting her case and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court did not interfere in the Writ Petition. While in the instant case, the Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board has been conducted within a period of less than 4 days and, therefore, there was no situation where a medical condition could be reversed.
8. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length. With the consent of the parties, the OA is decided at the admission stage itself.
9. It is not in dispute that the applicant had participated in the Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination - 2023 conducted by SSC. The applicant has obtained merit and his name is in the list of provisionally selected candidates. Medical was conducted on 20.01.2024 and the applicant was declared unfit for the reasons explained in the medical certificate annexed at page no. 19. Thereafter, a review medical examination was conducted on 23.01.2024 and the opinion of the Medical Board was maintained. The applicant has got herself examined from the reputed Govt. Hospital. The report of the same is annexed as Annexure-A/7. Clearly the reports of the medical examination by the respondents at the Govt. Hospitals are within a period of less than a month. Obviously, either of the two is incorrect. The 33 OA No.823/2024 & batch applicant has reached up to the provisional select list by obtaining her merit. We are conscious of the fact that we are not the experts and, therefore, cannot review or sit over an appeal of the medical boards or the opinion of the Govt. Hospital, particularly, in the light of the fact that review board as well as the review medical board has been conducted at the same hospital and, probably, by the same set of Doctors and within a period of less than seven days. Therefore, the very purpose of convening or conducting the review medical examination has been defeated and has become a futile exercise. Moreover, in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has decided the OA 1889/2023 on 17.07.2023. The judicial discipline binds us to take a similar view. The relevant excerpt of the same is reproduced herein below:
"The applicant was an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and participated in the selection examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The issue confronting the applicant, as explained by his learned counsel, is that despite the applicant clearing the various competitive stages of selection successfully, he has been denied appointment on the ground that the medical examination has declared him unfit.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Vide the reports of the review medical examination placed at Annexure A-1 and A-2, it has been recorded that the initial medical examination of the applicant found him unfit due to high Blood Pressure. Subsequently its finding has been reinforced in the review medical examination and further clarification has been added as "Stage-I Hypertension".
6. Learned counsel submits that both the initial medical examination as also the review medical examination have 34 OA No.823/2024 & batch been conducted in the same hospital by probably the same set of doctors, the concerned hospital being the BSF Hospital, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. What he seeks is that the review should be conducted by a medical board independent of the BSF Hospital which conducted the initial examination.
7. We are conscious of the fact that the applicant is stated to have been successful in all the stages of selection for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and hence deserves a fair chance for appointment to a post for which he has successfully competed on his own merits. This of course is subject to his meeting the statutory requirements which include medical fitness. In our opinion, he is deserving of another opportunity for a fresh medical examination."
9. The present OA is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government medical hospital except the Hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination.
10. Needless to say that the competent authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/ fresh medical examination.
11. The directions contained herein shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of the applicant being declared medically fit and subject to his meeting other criteria, she shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis.
12. We make it clear that besides the limited directions given above, we have neither examined nor commented upon the merits of the claim of the applicant as set forth in this OA. Further, nothing in this order is to be construed as an opinion upon the medical reports or upon the competence of the doctors who have issued it. We record that we are not entitled to comment upon their professional competence."
10. In light of the above facts, the learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s) rely upon the above decision as well as the facts of the case. The learned counsel for respondents Shri Amit Yadav vehemently argued that decision passed by the Co- 35
OA No.823/2024 & batch Ordinate Bench requires re-consideration and ought to be referred to Larger Bench. Shri Amit Yadav, Learned counsel does not dispute the fact and law involved in the present batch and in Anjali (supra) are one and the same, thereby implying that submissions made thereto would also be same. However, Shri Amit Yadav, learned counsel had urged that Co-Ordinate Bench has ignored the decision rendered titled Vijendra Singh Vs Commissioner of Police, W P (C) No.3830/2019 decided on 29.11.2022 as the same was passed by Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal ought to have followed the ratio underlying thereto. We find that Vijendra Singh (Supra) dealt with case of "Cubitus Valgus". The said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court was per incuriam. In present case(s), we are dealing with a situation where large number of candidates in batch of OAs have approached us for them being declared. Learned counsel for respondents also raised the issue of stare decisis for which he placed reliance upon an article written by Sh. Sunil Ambani, Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. Learned counsel for respondents contended that there should be no re-medical examination after a review medical board in the matter of judicial discipline and the scope of such judicial review is very limited and therefore, the Court should not upset the finding arrived at by the experts. He emphasized that the re-medical examination 36 OA No.823/2024 & batch ought not to have been ordered on the basis of individual opinions or private sentiments of the judges. He would contend that Coordinate Bench appears to have straightway followed the earlier decision, which is not the rule of law. Furthermore, the decision rendered by superior courts should be given precedence.
11. He further rely upon decision of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors., MANU/JK/0224/2015, relevant part of which is reproduced below:
―31. Here in this case also the appellant was assessed by a Medical Board, re-assessed by the Review Medical Board and was found unfit by the duly constituted Medical Board. The appellant has not alleged any mala fide against the Doctors of the Medical Boards. It is a well settled proposition of law that Court can go into the decision making process and the decision made is arbitrary or not. If the action of the public authority is not arbitrary or unreasonable or amounting to mala fide or improper power, the Courts are not expected to interfere with the said decision. The team of Doctors, who are experts in the assessment of the medical fitness of the candidates, having assessed the medical fitness of the appellant for the post of Constable (GD), the said decision cannot be held as unreasonable or arbitrary. It is also well settled proposition of law that Court has no expertise to review the decision made by the experts. The decision not to select a candidate with Knock-knee is a policy decision taken by the authorities and the said decision was taken, bearing in mind the nature of the duties to be performed by a B.S.F. Constable (GD) cannot be treated as arbitrary. Under our Constitution the executive has been accorded with primary responsibility for formulation of government policy and the Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional, arbitrary or irrational or contrary to the statutory provisions.‖
12. The present case pertained to the case of permission where the issue was that the applicant was diagnosed to 37 OA No.823/2024 & batch be suffering from ‗knock knee' disability. In the present case, we find that large number of cases have been rejected by the Review Medical Board of the aspirants/applicants being declared ‗unfit'. The word ‗unfit' is a generic term which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual and their medical condition thereto. There cannot be a straight jacket formula to apply the same universally thereby declaring the applicants individually without following the rule position. No doubt, the prescribed standards have to be followed but the same has to relate to arrive at a finding whether declaring the medically unfit applicants due to colour vision can apply in equal force to all the applicants without their being a declaration that due to specific defective vision the applicant(s) are individually to perform the duties as that for the purpose of which recruitment is made.
13. We do not agree with the proposition made by Shri Amit Yadav, Learned counsel. There is not even remotest suggestion that respondents are contemplating any review of the said decision.
14. We have carefully gone through the records of the case as well as independently gone through the judgment Anjali 38 OA No.823/2024 & batch (supra). We do not have slightest doubt in our mind that the Hon'ble Coordinate has passed well reasoned judgment in facts and circumstances of the case(s). We cannot take a divergent view, in the present cases also. To supplement , we are persuaded to record additional reasons and form our opinion to concur with the observations expressed in O.A. No. 670/2024 titled " Annalist Vs SSC and ors" decided on 11.3.2024.
15. ANALYSIS :
In addition to above observations, we further record our observations as under:-
15.1 The procedure to be followed for recruitment to new appointments by laying the prescribed standards have to be in consonance with FR 10 read with Supplementary Rules 3, 4 and 4-A and Rules position thereto as the user department i.e Delhi Police falls within the administrative control and overall supervision of Ministry of Home affairs, Union of India. 15.2 PART II :CHAPTER III of Fundamental Rules prescribe the GENERAL CONDITION OF SERVICE:
F. R. 10 - Except as provided by this rule, no person may be appointed in India to a post in Government service without a medical certificate of health. The Central Government may make 39 OA No.823/2024 & batch rules prescribing the form in which medical certificates should be prepared, and the particular medical or other officers by whom they should be signed. It may, in individual cases, dispense with the production of a certificate, and may by general orders exempt any specified class of Government servants from the operation of this rule. [ For rules made under the Fundamental Rule 10, Ref Supplementary Rules 3, 4 and 4- A] 15.3 CATEGORIES FOR REPORTING THE FINDINGS BI' MEDICAL AUTHORITIES .The findings of the examining medical authority shall fit; recorded under one of the following three categories only :--
(1 ) Fit (2) Unfit (3) Temporarily unfit.
15.4 RULES UNDER F.R. 10 & GOVT. OF INDIA ORDERS, prescribe that A medical certificate of fitness for Government service shall be in the following form :-
`°I hereby certify that I have examined A.B.Candidate for employment in the _____________________Department, and cannot discover that do not consider wise), constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity exceptthis a disqualification for employment in the office of _______________."40
OA No.823/2024 & batch 15.5 In the case of a female candidate appointed to a non-
gazetted post (i) in Delhi the medical certificate shall be signed by an Assistant Surgeon Grade I (Woman) under the Contributory Health Service Scheme; and (ii) in any other place by a registered female medical practitioner possessing a medical qualification in- cluded in one of the schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) (Indian Medical Central Act, 1970 and Homoeopathy Central Coun-cil Act, 1973).
15.6 In cases where the :rules for recruitment to new appointments -prescribe a fresh medical examination in respect of all candidates, all directly recruited/selected candidates, irrespective of whether they arc already in permanent or quasi-perma- nent Government service in the same or in other departments or are fresh appointees, should undergo a medical examination by the prescribed standard and by the prescribed medical authority, provided that a fresh medical examination will not be necessary in the case of--
(a) a person who has already been medically examined -by the prescribed medical standard and the appropriate medical authority, irrespective of the fact whether that person was permanent, quasi-permanent or :temporary in his previous appointment, and 41 OA No.823/2024 & batch
(b) a person who is already in permanent, or quasi-permanent employ in the same line, and being eligible for promotion to the new appointment against -a promotion -quota of vacancies, is actually so promoted. Exemptions ;under Supplementary Rule 4-A will continue to be granted in the same way as at present by the Ministry of Finance in consultation, where necessary, with the Ministries of Home Affairs and Health.[MOF. OM No. F.53 (8) -V/50, dated the 5th October, 1950 No. F.55 (11) -E.V/59, dated the 12th February, 1960, and No. F.15 (1) -EN (B) t!6.2 dated the 5th July, 1962 and U.O. No. 3617-E.(V)/B/63 dated the 25th January, 1964.] 15.7 We are concerned with re-examination by special medical board in case unfitness on account of visual acuity.
If a candidate is declared medically unfit on account of visual acuity, an appeal preferred by him/her should be dealt' with' by a Special Medical Board, the 'composition of which should include three ophthalmologists. Ordinarily, the finding of the special Medical Board should be considered as final; but a second appeal shall be permissible in doubtful cases and under very special circumstances. [MM. ofHealth OM No F'.5(11)-12/57 M-II (Pt. II) dated the 17th December, 1957.] 42 OA No.823/2024 & batch If a candidate is declared medically unfit on account of visual acuity, an appeal preferred by him/her should be dealt' with' by a special Medical Board, the 'composition of which should include three ophthalmologists. Ordinarily, the finding of the Special Medical Board should be considered as final; but a second appeal shall be permissible in doubtful cases and under very special circumstances. [MM. of Health OM No F'.5(11)-12/57 M-II (Pt. II) dated the 17th December, 1957.) 15.8 We do not have any doubt in our mind that as a normal course, in cases where the :rules for recruitment to new appointments -prescribe a fresh medical examination in respect of all candidates, all directly recruited/selected candidates, irrespective of whether they are already in permanent or quasi-permanent Government service in the same or in other departments or are fresh appointees, should undergo a medical examination by the prescribed standard and by the prescribed medical authority. (MM. of Health OM No F'.5(11)-12/57 M-II (Pt. II) dated the 17th December, 1957), which cannot be overlooked that mandates a second appeal shall be permissible in doubtful cases and under very special circumstances.
15.9 The present cases fall in category of doubtful cases and under very special circumstances in as much as firstly , the 43 OA No.823/2024 & batch review medical board has been constituted within short span of time for the candidates who have come under zone of consideration in select list amongst large number of aspirants after crossing all stages of selection process and their candidature, secondly, the applicant(s) have produced a ― Medical Certificate ― from a Government hospital‖ which creates doubt of contradictory reports at different levels ie Medical board, -Review Medical Board, thirdly, there are three medical opinion(s), all under government set up, thus , there appears to be an error of judgment on the part of the examining medical authorities, fourthly, the medical report of ophthalmologist produced by the applicant cannot be ignored and constitute a sufficient evidence and material for having a independent certificate/opinion by way of second appeal to arrive and determine whether in existing state of health i.e the candidate is fit to discharge the duties required of him/her continuously and efficiently under by the prescribed standard under RR's., lastly, to ensure uniformity of fair assessment and procedure, the candidate(s) have been declared medically unfit on account of visual acuity, an second appeal preferred by him/her should be dealt' with' by a Special Medical Board, the 'Composition of which should include three ophthalmologists. In case of women candidates, one of the ophthalmologists should be women.
44
OA No.823/2024 & batch
16. CONCLUSION 16.1 The present OA(s) are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Competent authority amongst the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant (s) by way of constituting an appropriate medical board (the composition of which should include three ophthalmologists. In case of women candidates, one of the ophthalmologists should be women) in any government medical hospital except the Hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination.
16.2 Needless to say that the competent authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant(s) on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/ fresh medical examination. 16.3 The directions contained herein shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of the applicant being declared medically fit and subject to his meeting other criteria, she shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis. 45
OA No.823/2024 & batch 16.4 We make it clear that besides the limited directions given above, we have neither examined nor commented upon the merits of the respective claim of the applicant(s) as set forth in these OA. We have examined the case of the parties in respect of visual acuity only. Further, nothing in this order is to be construed as an opinion upon the medical reports or upon the competence of the doctors who have issued it. We record that we are not entitled to comment upon their professional competence.
16.5 All pending applications are also disposed off, if already not disposed of. No costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) ‗SD'