Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Prabhat Pandey on 25 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~257
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 14537/2024
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
PRABHAT PANDEY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yashraj Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 60955/2024, CM APPL. 60956/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 14537/2024, CM APPL. 60954/2024, CM APPL.
60957/20242. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short "Tribunal") in Original Application (in short "OA") No. 683/2024, titled Prabhat Pandey v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., directing the petitioners herein to constitute a Medical Board for a fresh medical examination of the respondent, who was declared medically unfit for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police.
3. The respondent had been declared medically unfit on 18.01.2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P(C) 14537/2024 Page 1 of 3 By:NEELAM Signing Date:27.11.2024 17:26:54 in the Detailed Medical Board (DME) examination for appointment to the above post, observing that he had a defective distant vision and stammering. Being aggrieved of the same, the respondent requested for a Review Medical Examination, which also, vide Report dated 23.01.2024, declared the respondent unfit but only on the ground of stammering. Unsatisfied with the said report, the respondent got himself examined at the Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi as well as at the Department of ENT, M.Y. Hospital, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The reports from both hospitals, dated 24.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 respectively, observed that the speech of the respondent is normal and he was not found to be stammering. Armed with the said reports, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal with the aforementioned OA, which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal vide the Impugned Order, directing the petitioners to conduct a fresh medical examination of the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of the medical examination dated 23.01.2024 cannot be challenged only on the basis of subsequent reports obtained by the respondent from civilian hospitals. He submits that there was no allegation of malafide or violation of any procedure made against the examination by the Medical Boards of the petitioners. He further submits that the reports of the Medical Boards cannot be re-opened in this casual manner; and they are to be considered as final as far as the appointment procedure is concerned.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, at least in two hospitals, the respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P(C) 14537/2024 Page 2 of 3 By:NEELAM Signing Date:27.11.2024 17:26:54 was not found to be suffering from stammering; this casts a doubt on the opinion of the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board. In any case, there was an inconsistency even between the report of the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Though it goes without saying that the opinion of the Medical Boards appointed by the petitioners for assessing the medical qualification of a candidate cannot be easily interfered with and are considered to be final, however, in the peculiar facts of the present case, where the respondent was alleged to be found stammering in the medical examination reports by the petitioners, which was not so when the respondent was examined at the two hospitals, reports whereof have been placed before us as also before the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly directed for a fresh medical examination of the respondent.
8. We, therefore, do not find this to be a fit case for interfering with the Impugned Order in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. The petition along with the pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J NOVEMBER 25, 2024/ss/km/as Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P(C) 14537/2024 Page 3 of 3 By:NEELAM Signing Date:27.11.2024 17:26:54