Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nripendra Kumar Dwivedi vs Gnctd on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 302/2025
Reserved on:- 19.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Nripendra Kumar Dwivedi,
Age-39 years,
S/o Sh. Jeevshankar Dwivedi
R/o- ViII. & Post-Chandpur,
Tehsil-Bairia, District-Ballia,
Uttarpradesh-277201
Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)
Sub: Appointment.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chauhan)
Versus
1. Delhi Police,
Through its Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment: Delhi,
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Ritu Mishra)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:31
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.(i)To set aside the medical report dated 23.1.2024 and Review Medical examination report dated 25.1.2024 whereby the applicant was declared medically 'unfit' and to further direct the respondents that the applicant be subjected to a fresh medical examination in any recognized / reputed hospital of the government in NCR at the earliest and if found fit then to appoint the applicant to the post of Constable(Exe.) Male in present selection process with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
(ii)To decide the representation dated 15.11.2024 in a time bound manner that too by a speaking order.
And/Or
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Male under the ESM + UR category pursuant to the SSC Constable (Executive) Examination-2023 notification dated 01.09.2023. The applicant cleared the Computer Based Examination on merit, secured marks higher than the prescribed cut-off, qualified the PE&MT, and was thereafter subjected to Detailed Medical Examination on 23.01.2024, wherein he was declared unfit on the ground of right-sided inguinal hernia, though the DME report was never supplied to him. Subsequently, in Review Medical Examination dated 25.01.2024, the applicant was again ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV declared unfit on a different ground, namely bilateral Hydrocele, despite the Review Medical Board itself recommending referral to a surgical specialist. 2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant later obtained a fitness certificate dated 19.09.2024 from a competent government medical institution certifying that no active surgical intervention was required. Despite a detailed representation dated 15.11.2024 seeking re-medical examination in light of the contradictory medical opinions and the fitness certificate, the respondents neither decided the representation nor granted re-medical examination, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal. 2.2. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Hon'ble Tribunal to page 28 of the O.A., where the definitions of Hydrocele and Hernia, as obtained from Google search records, have been placed on record. The said definitions read as under:--
Hydrocele: A collection of fluid around the testicle that causes swelling in the scrotum.
Hernia: Abdominal organs or tissues that protrude into the scrotum or groin.
Pointing out the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the DME and RME reports are ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV contradictory to each other and, therefore, cannot be inter-
related.
2.3. Learned counsel drew attention to the fitness report dated 19.09.2024 of the applicant obtained from Dr. Ram Monohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, wherein it has been stated that 'No surgical intervention required as of now".
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and submitted that the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police was conducted strictly in accordance with the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, Standing Order No. HRD-04/2022, and the Recruitment Notice dated 01.09.2023.
The applicant, though successful in the Computer Based Examination and PE&MT, was declared medically unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination dated 23.01.2024 on account of right-sided inguinal hernia and again declared medically unfit in the Review Medical Examination dated 25.01.2024 on account of bilateral hydrocele by duly constituted Medical Boards comprising senior doctors of CAPFs hospitals. As per the governing rules and recruitment notice, the decision of the Review Medical Board is final and no further appeal or re- medical examination is permissible. The applicant's ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV subsequent private medical fitness certificate has no binding value on the respondents, and his representation dated 15.11.2024 was duly examined and rejected by the competent authority at Police Headquarters, which was duly communicated to him. It was contended that there is no arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural infirmity in the medical examination process, and the applicant has rightly been declared medically unfit for appointment. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that both the diseases, namely Hydrocele and Hernia, are the same, and that Hydrocele is an advanced stage of Hernia. 3.2. Learned counsel further drew our attention to the following paras of the counter affidavit:
"10 That the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) of the applicant was conducted on 23.01.2024 and applicant was declared medically Unfit on account of 'Right sided inguinal Hernia'. Photocopies of the DME of the applicant are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/''1".
11. That the Review Medical Examination (RME) of the applicant was conducted on 25.01.2024 by the Review Medical Board consisting of members as senior doctors at Base Hospital, ITBP, New Delhi and the applicant was declared medically UNFIT on account of "B/L hydrocele R>L". The Photocopies of the RME of the applicant are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/'2'.
12....
13. That aggrieved being declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Executive) in Review Medical Examination, the applicant filed a representation dated 15.11.2024 to worthy CP/Delhi seeking fresh medical examination.
14. .....
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV
15. That accordingly, the representation submitted by the applicant was examined in Headquarters and the same was rejected. The applicant was informed accordingly vide this office letter No. XII/2024/1095/Rectt. Cell (R-1)/Ct./NPL dated 06.02.20252(Annexure-R/'3').
16. That the aggrieved being declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Executive), the applicant has filed the instant O.A. seeking re-medical examination by challenging the DME report dated 23.01.2025, RME report dated 25.01.2025 and also leveling baseless allegation on the department that respondents are sitting over his representation dated 15.11.2024." 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the following speaking order dated 06.02.2025 has been passed on the representation of the applicant, which has not been challenged:-
"Subject:- Recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police-2023.
(Appeal regarding medical unfitness) -- regarding.
Please refer to your representation dated 15.11.2024 regarding medical unfitness in DME & RME for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police Examination-2023.
In this regard, I am directed to inform that your representation has been examined at Delhi Police Headquarters and the same has been rejected on the following grounds:-
Ø The standard of medical examination of candidates for the post of Constable (Exe.) is prescribed in Rule-9 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and amendment from time to time. The medical examination is conducted as per guidelines contained in Appendix XXX read with Rule-24 (2) of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules. The medical standard for the said post prescribes "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."
Ø On 23.01.2024, your detailed medical examination was conducted at CRPF Composite Hospital, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi where you were declared medically unfit on account of "Right Side Inguinal Hernia."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV Ø On 25.01.2024, your review medical examination was conducted at Base Hospital, ITBP, New Delhi and you were again declared medically unfit on account of B/L Hydrocele R>L. Ø Since, you were found medically unfit in DME as well as RME and there is no provision for conducning the 3rd medical examination of a candidate as per ruled of Govt. of India framed on the subject except in visual acuity in exceptional cases.
Ø No valid cause of action is made out in you favour and as per norms, decision of Review Medical Board is final and no appeal/representation against the decision of the Review Medical Board can be entertained.
Ø Since, you have been declared medically unfit in Detailed Medical Examination (DME) as well as Review medical examination (RME), as such your candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police Examination-2023 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. No further correspondence, in this regard will be entertained. This issues with the approval of Addl. CP/Recruitment." 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that a surgical expert were part of the Review Medical Board, which comprised senior doctors at the Base Hospital, ITBP, New Delhi, and that it was on the basis of their opinion that the applicant was declared medically unfit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the present case is one where the applicant was initially subjected to a Detailed Medical Examination, wherein the Medical Board opined that he was suffering from Hernia. Upon filing an appeal, the applicant was subjected to a Review Medical ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV Examination, in which the Review Medical Board opined that he was suffering from Hydrocele, which is a distinct and different medical condition from Hernia. Thereafter, the applicant underwent medical examination at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where the doctors declared him medically fit. Thus, it is submitted that there exist three divergent and conflicting medical opinions on record.
5.2. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 13089/2024 [UOI v Sagar Kumar] decided on 14.11.2024.
Relevant paragraphs of which reads as under:
"47. The first is that there is a discrepancy between the DME and the RME. The DME does not record the existence of any Varicocele but finds the respondent to be suffering from Right Inguinal Hernia. As against this, the RME has not returned any observation about the existence of Hernia but has disqualified the respondent from appointment on the ground that he suffers from Left Sided Varicocele (Grade IV).
48. The second reason why we are not inclined to interfere is because, in an identical case of one Vatan Singh, who was also suffering from Left Sided Varicocele, the RME referred him to the Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital for opinion.
49. In that case, the Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital found the candidate to be suffering from bilateral Varicocele but opined that, if he underwent surgical intervention, he could possibly be fit for appointment. We found that, without waiting for the candidate to undertake a surgical intervention, the RME straight away proceeded to declare him unfit for appointment. In our judgment in Aman Singh, we have held that this was not permissible and have, therefore, upheld the Tribunal's decision to refer Vatan Singh for a re-review Medical Examination."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV 5.3 Upon a careful perusal of the record of the present case, this Tribunal finds that there exists a fine distinction between the facts of the present case and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, for the following reasons:--
(i) The applicant was referred to a surgical specialist for further investigation during the Detailed Medical Examination conducted on 23.01.2024.
(ii) The Review Medical Examination was headed by the Chief Medical Officer, who was a surgical expert, and the applicant was declared medically unfit in the said Review Medical Examination conducted on 24.01.2024.
(iii) The reliance placed by the applicant on the medical opinion of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, obtained post-RME, wherein it was opined that "no surgical intervention is required as of now", by itself and ipso facto, does not establish or conclude that the applicant is medically fit for appointment to the post of Constable in Delhi Police, having regard to the prescribed medical standards.
(iv) In cases of Hernia, the prescribed medical standards for disciplined forces mandate examination of all hernial sites, including inguinal, epigastric, umbilical and femoral hernia.
Any abdominal wall hernia renders a candidate unfit. A ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV candidate with a well-healed surgical scar, after six months of either open or laparoscopic repair, may be considered fit only if there is no evidence of recurrence and the abdominal wall musculature is found to be adequate.
(v) In cases of Hydrocele, the prescribed medical standards provide as under:--
(a) Unfit -- current Hydrocele on either side;
(b) Fit -- operated cases of Hydrocele may be considered fit after four weeks of surgery, provided there are no post-
operative complications and the wound has healed satisfactorily.
5.4 In Km. Priyanka v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 10783/2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the standards of physical fitness prescribed for the Armed Forces and Police Forces are necessarily more stringent than those applicable to civilian employment. The Hon'ble High Court observed that it is the doctors of the Forces, who are fully conversant with the nature of duties, operational requirements, and physical rigours involved, and are therefore best equipped to assess whether a candidate meets the prescribed medical standards for such services. It was further held as under:--
"8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV 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."
5.5 In O.A. No. 876/2011, titled Jitender S/o Rajinder Singh v. UPSC, decided on 07.03.2011, this Tribunal observed as under:--
"With the medical records as mentioned above, the applicant made representation, and as mentioned above, was, once again examined by review medical board, and again found unfit. The possible chances that could be given to the applicant, as per rules and instructions, for him to prove that he is medically fit, have already been given to him. The applicant, as mentioned above, is to join a police force, for which the standard of physical fitness has to be up to the level that may have been prescribed by the authorities. There cannot be any concession on that count. Even the medical record produced by the applicant before the concerned authorities is not absolutely clear. It rather goes to show that the applicant does have the problem as pointed out when he was first medically examined, as also on review medical examination. It is only that in the opinion of the specialist doctor in the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi, the applicant may have a mild problem, which may not require any treatment or surgery, but he indeed has a problem, which, according to the respondents, would not entitle him to get a job in police force."
5.6 The mere existence of subsequent medical opinions does not, by itself, warrant interference by this Tribunal or justify a direction for a fresh medical examination, particularly in ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:31 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 42 O.A. No. 302/2025 Court No. IV matters relating to recruitment to a disciplined force. In the present case, the applicant was assessed on two occasions by duly constituted Medical Boards of the Forces, including a Review Medical Board headed by a surgical expert, and was found medically unfit in accordance with the prescribed medical standards. The subsequent medical opinion obtained by the applicant from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, stating that no surgical intervention was required "as of now", neither negates nor overrides the findings of the competent Medical Boards.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present O.A. is dismissed.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:31
NI +05'30'