Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sonali Damne vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 18 August, 2025
1
Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.969/2024
This the 18th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Sonali Damne
D/o Sh. Suresh Damne
R/o Ward No. 10, Kumuthi,
P.O. - Kumthi,
Tehsil- Pandhana,
Distt. Khandwa
(M.P.)-450337
(aged about 26 years)
2. Kailash Ram Jakhar
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Jakhar
R/o Keriyawas Nagaur
Rajasthan 341507
(aged about 26 years)
3. Beena Waskle
D/o Sh. Khumsingh Waskle
R/o Gram Dhupi Khurd, Block Jhirniya
District Khargone, MP-451332
(aged about 26 years)
4. Khushbu Kumari
D/0 Sh. Hariom
R/o Village-Naya Gaon,
Post-Sikandrabad,
Oistrict-Bulandshahr
(aged about 21 years)
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Ms. J Merlyn Rachel with
Mr. Pawan Kumar)
Versus
I. Union of India,
2
Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024
Through its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance &
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 : Ms. Anupama Bansal)
3
Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-
"(a) quash and set aside impugned medical report of applicants (placed at Annexure All) (Colly) and
(b) direct the respondents to further consider the applicants for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) in accordance with their merit position
(c) If need be, the applicants 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 tit and proper in favour of the applicant."
2. The present Original Application has been filed pursuant to the remand directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14694/2024, Union of India & Ors. vs. Khushbu Kumari, dated 25.11.2024, whereby the matter was remitted to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The remand has been made in respect of the case of applicant No. 4, Ms. Khushbu Kumari. Accordingly, the present O.A. is being taken up afresh on merits in case of the applicant No. 4 4 Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024 herein in light of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.
3. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. She applied pursuant to the notification dated 01.09.2023 issued by the SSC. Having qualified the Computer Based Examination, she was shortlisted for Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, which she cleared successfully. She was thereafter called for document verification and medical examination.
4. In the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) conducted on 22.01.2024, the applicant was declared unfit on two counts, namely, the presence of a tattoo on the right hand and a scar mark on the left side of the chest measuring 4 x 4 cm.
5. On her representation, she was referred to the Review Medical Examination (RME) conducted on 27.01.2024 at BSF Hospital, Tigri Camp, where she was again declared unfit. This time the ground noted was "Keloid + nt over sternum (4 cm), with chances of recurrence and malignancy," based on the opinion of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini. 5
Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024
6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant along with other candidates approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 969/2024, wherein by order dated 10.05.2024, a direction was issued for re-medical examination. The Union of India challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 14634/2024, to the extent it related to the present applicant. Vide judgment dated 25.11.2024, the Hon'ble High Court observed that this Tribunal had not examined the specific issue of Keloid and accordingly remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
7. During the course of proceedings, the applicant was examined at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, Department of Dermatology. The OPD slip dated 24.04.2025, issued by Dr. Saurabh Gupta, Dermatology & Leprosy, records the impression as "Keloid" with the remarks that "there is minimal chance of recurrence and no chance of malignancy (as quoted in literature). No treatment required at present."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once a government dermatologist has opined that the condition is benign and neither requires treatment nor 6 Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024 carries any risk of malignancy, the rejection of the applicant on medical grounds is wholly unjustified. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 13821/2024, Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh & batch matters, decided on 24.10.2024, wherein it was held that Keloid is a benign dermatological condition and cannot be treated as a ground of medical unfitness. He also relies upon W.P.(C) No. 5759/2025, Staff Selection Commission v. Shruti Mishra, decided on 05.05.2025, wherein the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court. It is, therefore, urged that the applicant's case be considered in the same terms.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that recruitment to a disciplined force such as Delhi Police requires strict medical standards. The applicant has been examined by two independent Medical Boards and declared unfit, including on the opinion of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini. According to her, as per Standing Order No. HRD-04/2022, a candidate must be free from defect, deformity, or disease, and the presence of keloid with chances of recurrence or 7 Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024 malignancy falls within disqualification. She relies on Clause 24 of Delhi Police Rules, 1980. She further contends that the decision of the Review Medical Board is final and ordinarily not open to judicial interference, and that the tribunal should not substitute its views for those of the expert medical board.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The medical report of RML Hospital, which is a premier government institution, clearly states that the condition of the applicant is Keloid, that there is minimal chance of recurrence, no chance of malignancy, and no treatment is required at present. Once such a categorical opinion is available from a competent government specialist, the speculative remark of "chances of malignancy" recorded by the RME cannot be a sustainable ground for rejection.
11. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in SSC v. Aman Singh & batch (supra) as well as in SSC v. Shruti Mishra (supra), has conclusively held that Keloid is a benign condition, does not impair functional ability, and 8 Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024 cannot be treated as a ground of medical unfitness for public employment.
12. We are mindful of the respondents' contention that standards in uniformed forces must be strict. However, judicial interference is justified where the disqualification is based on conjecture rather than cogent medical evidence, particularly when higher judicial fora have already ruled on the very condition in issue. In the present case, we are not substituting our own views for those of the medical board but are only giving effect to the binding precedents laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. The Original Application qua Applicant No. 4, Ms. Khushbu Kumari, ought to be decided in her favor in line with the ratio laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in SSC v. Aman Singh(supra) and SSC v. Shruti Mishra (supra).
13. In light of the foregoing, we hold that the rejection of the applicant on medical grounds cannot be sustained. The respondents are accordingly directed to refer the applicant for a fresh medical examination by a duly constituted Medical Board in light of the directions in terms of SSC v. Aman Singh (supra) and 9 Item No.77/ C-IV O.A. No.969/2024 SSC v. Shruti Mishra (supra) within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. In the event that the applicant is declared fit, the respondents shall issue the offer of appointment to her for the post of Constable (Executive) Female in Delhi Police - 2023 in accordance with her merit position and rules, within a further period of forty-five days thereafter.
15. Pending MAs, if any, shall also be disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sm/