Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sumit Sharma vs Health And Family Welfare on 14 October, 2025
Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3890/2023
No.
This the 14th day of October, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Sumit
umit Sharma Aged about 29 years, S/o Shri
Rajendra Sharma, Permanent Resident of K-K
347/7, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, Badarpur, New
Delhi 110044 (Earlier resided at):-Room
at): No.
505, Tower No. 5, N.E.H, J.S.P.L Raigarh,
Chattisgarh 496 001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Kr. Mahur, Mr. Harkesh Parashar,
Ms. Hemlata Mahur)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi 110011
2. The Medical Superintendent, Safdarjang
Hospital & V.M.M.C, Govt. of India
Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi 110029.
3. The Deputy Director (Admin) Safdarjang
Hospital & V.M.M.C, Govt. of India
Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi 110029.
110029
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Archit Vasudeva)
Vasudeva
Page 1 of 7
Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
ORDER(ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
(J):
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has ha prayed for the following reliefs:
"
"i) Quash and set-aside aside the impugned Order No. F. No. 8-6/2020 8 6/2020-Admn. II(A) dated 28.07.2023 vide which the Respondents have cancelled the offer of appointment dated 17.05.2022 issued to applicant for the post of Physiotherapist Physiotherapist-SIC Level-6.
ii) Issue an ord order er thereby directing the respondents to issue appointment and joining letter to the applicant to the post of Physiotherapist-SIC Physiotherapist SIC Level Level-6 along with all consequential benefits;
iii) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant places challenge upon the impugned order dated 228.07.2023, 8.07.2023, vide which his candidature for the post of Physiotherapist has been rejected despite the fact that he was duly selected for the same and an offer of appointment has also been issued to him. The reason adduced in the impugned order for rejecting the candidature is as under:
under:-
"The candidate Sumit Sharma was examined on 10.10.2022 (Monday) by a board of three Ophthalmologists. The candidate was found to be suffering from B/E (Choroideremia) and his visual acuity in both eyes is 6/24 6/24-R/E and 6/18- L/E L/E. The post of Physiotherapist is a technical post; hence he is unfit for the post."Page 2 of 7
Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
3. We take note of the fact that while issuing the notice in the present matter on 09.12.2023, the respondents were restrained for not filling up the post of Physiotherapist in UR category, till the next date of hearing.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed and therefore, the pleadings are complete in the present matter.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the fact that it is no doubt that the applicant applied under Unreserved Unreserved (U (UR) category and the question of applicant applied in in physically handicapped does not arise at all.. He was among the top candidates in the merit list. During the course of medical examination, the applicant was found low vision. He further draws our attention to the advertisement for various post including the post of Physiotherapist-SIC Physiotherapist SIC Level 6 (35400 (35400-112400) vide notification No.F.No.8 No.F.No.8-10/2010 10/2010-Admn.II(A), Admn.II(A), which reads as under:
S. Name of Mode of No. of Age limit Educational Whether the post No. the post recruitment vacancies Qualification is identified for PWD category
2. Physiother Direct 01-UR Upto 30 years Essential: OL (one leg), BL apist-SIC Recruitment (relaxable for (i) Bachelor's (both leg), BLA Level 6 01-ST Govt. Degree in (both legs and (35400- servants upto Physiotherapy arms), LV(low 112400) 5 years in from a vision) accordance recognized with the University or instructions or Institute; and orders issued (ii) Two years by Central practical Government experience in from time to Physiotherapy in time) a Government Hospital with atleast 100 beds.
Desirable: Master Degree of Physiotherapy from a recognized University/Institu y/Institu te.
Page 3 of 7 Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.2869/2003 dated 23.09.2008 titled Secretary (Education) & Ors. vs. Mr. Mukesh Chand & Anr., which reads as under:
"Here is a meritorious disabled person (respondent No. 1 herein) suffering from the problem of progressive low vision (Retenitis Pigmentosa). He being unaware of his disability disability opted to compete with general category candidates and topped the list of successful candidates in the examination held by the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (in short 'DSSSB') for recruitment to the post of TGT (Language Teacher) in 1999. ****** *********************************************** ***************************************** 14 In the present case, the respondent No.1 has proved his merit by topping the list of successful candidates in the examination held by the DSSSB for the post of TGT (Language Teacher). What sin has he committed by by competing with the general candidates? Should he be punished by maintaining his impugned termination only because he is suffering from some eye problem which is not a disqualification for appointment to the post of teachers in Government schools? The ans answer wer to this. obviously, cannot be anything but a simple 'No'. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 had taken the written examination held by the DSSSB without any external aid provided to him by the Government authorities or by anybody else but still he topped topped the list of successful candidates. The eye problem of respondent No. 1 should not come in his way for his appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi). In the opinion of this Court, directions given by the Chief Commissioner, Disabilities in the impugned oorder are quite innocuous in as much as it has only directed the petitioners to get respondent No. 1 re re-examined examined from a fresh Medical Board making it clear to the Board that his eye problem should not influence his medical fitness and to revoke the impugned termination, if he is otherwise found medically fit. No fault can be found with such a direction contained in the impugned order.
15 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with directions to to the petitioners to get respondent No. 1 re re-examined examined from a fresh Medical Board to be constituted in Guru Nanak Eye Centre within four weeks from today and to reinstate him in service within 15 days of the receipt of the fresh medical report with all cons consequential benefits of continuity of service, seniority, etc in case he is otherwise found medically fit. However, he shall not be entitled to back wages till the date of his reinstatement on the principle of 'No work, no pay'. The parties are left to bear their own costs"
7. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He does not dispute that the offer of appointment was issued pursuant to the medical examination is concerned. H Hee submits that the post of physiotherapist Page 4 of 7 Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023 SIC in level 6 (35400 (35400-112400) 112400) advertised was identified for PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) category which includes LV(Low Vision). However, the same post was never reserved for PwBD, as per the adverti advertisement published. The he applicant while filling the form has not mentioned the information correctly, that the applicant applied against UR category but there in the application form at pt. 9, he was asked whether Physically Handicapped (If so percentage & details details and details of disability disability)) in which he has stated "NO", which which is wrong/false information. The he respondent declared the result of examination conducted for the post of phys physiotherapist iotherapist - SIC on 23.03.2022. O On being declared successful in the written examination, examination, an offer of appointment dated 29.04.2022 was issued to the applicant with various terms and conditions. He submits that itt was clearly mentioned in the offer of appointment at point No. 4 that the appointment is subject to being declared medical medically ly fit and verification of certificates of qualification. experience and caste etc. before joining.
8. In the impugned order, a reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was examined on 10.10.2022 (Monday) by a board of three Opthalmologists. The candidate date was found to be suffering from B/E (Choroideremia) and his visual acuity in both eyes is 6/24-R/E 6/24 and 6/18-L/E. L/E. The post of Physiotherapist is a technical post; hence, the applicant is not fit for the post.
Page 5 of 7 Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
9. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record, we observe that the applicant's case cannot be rejected on technical grounds, particularly in light of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which pertain to the post in question. It was clearly notified in the Advertisement that the post was identified for the PwD category, which includes individuals with low vision. Th Therefore, the respondents' stand denying benefits on the pretext that the post is technical and the appl applicant icant is unfit is untenable. The observations made in the impugned order itself run directly contrary to the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which are binding on both parties. Since the post has already been identified as suitable for individual individuals with low vision, we find no justification for rejecting the applicant's candidature on the ground that the post of Physiotherapist is a technical one.
10. Much reliance has been placed on two submissions: non non-disclosure or mis mis-disclosure disclosure of the applicant's applicant's medical status, specifically regarding his low vision. Furthermore, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that individuals with 40% or more disability would be eligible for reservation under the Physically Handicapped quota, as per Clause 16 ooff the Advertisement. However, we fail to understand how Clause 16 is being excluded from the present case, especially when the UR category itself implies that individuals with low vision should also be considered.
Page 6 of 7 Item No.41 (Court-4) O.A. No..3890/2023
11. Since an offer of appointment was issued, issued, it was only during the medical examination that it came to light that the applicant is suffering from low vision without glasses, as highlighted above. The rejection is not based on non non-disclosure, disclosure, but rather because the position of Physiotherapist is a technical post. This is not a case of false declaration or mis mis-declaration declaration by the applicant. We are further strengthened by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mr. Mukesh Chand (supra).
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 issued by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside. We restore the offer of appointment to the applicant dated 17.05.2022 for the post of Physiotherapist Physiotherapist-SIC Level-6.
6. The respondents are directed to grant the applicant joining, pro provided vided he fulfills all other eligibility criteria. This exercise shall be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the applicant shall be entitled to notional benefits concerning pay fixation, with the actual pay benefit to be accorded on the date of joining, except for seniority, as the post is a single vacancy that has been advertised.
13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 7 of 7