Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suman Meena vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 11 December, 2025
1
Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 1656/2025
Reserved on:- 04.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 11.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Suman Meena
Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police
PIS No.28183194
Recruit SI (Ex.) in CAPFs/Delhi Police
Roll No.2201089519
Aged about 32 Years
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Meena
R/o Vill : Meena Dant Ka Pura
PO: Kotari, Tehsil : Hindaun,
Rajasthan-322234
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
2. Boarder Security Force
Through its Director General
Block-II, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
3. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHO, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ronak Kanpuria)
2025.12.16
ANKIT
09:47:13
SAKLANI
+05'30'
2
Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the instant O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"1. To quash and set aside the RME Report dt.4.3.2024 (Ann A-1) and Final Result dt.10.6.2024 (Ann A-2) to the extent the respondents are treating the candidature of the applicant as cancelled due to being medically unfit for suffering from "Inguinal Hernia".
2. To direct the respondents to constitute and appoint an independent Special Medical Board to re-examine the applicant medically with respect to alleged findings of having "Inguinal Hernia".
3. To direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of SI (Ex.) in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits.
4. To award cost in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant is working as a Constable in Delhi Police since 2018. The applicant has applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.) in Delhi Police Examination 2023 as a departmental candidate of Delhi Police. The case of the applicant has been rejected on medical grounds that the applicant is undergoing treatment of 'Inguinal Hernia'. Learned counsel stated that the applicant was operated in Sarvodaya Hospital.
2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV 2.2. Learned counsel further stated that once the applicant has applied as a departmental candidate for a higher post and the applicant himself is working as a Constable, the medical standard should not be an impediment, more particularly in light of the fact that he has been cured of the medical ailment and is fit to discharge his duties as a Police Official. He also submitted that since the applicant is already performing the duties of the post of Constable (Executive), there cannot be any other impediment as contended by the respondents while rejecting the case of the applicant on the grounds that he is under treatment of Inguinal Hernia.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit, more particularly highlighting paragraph 6, which reads as under:-
"6. Recruitment is not an ever ending process and the recruitment in question has already concluded. There is no vacancy left for the said recruitment year. The applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal after lapse of one year. Being a fence sitter, he cannot now claim reservation of seat in an already concluded recruitment and demand re-medical again. ln the list of the above, the O.A. is fit to be rejected in limine"
3.1. Learned counsel drew attention to clause 12.11.1 of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 22.07.2023, which reads as under:-
2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 4 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV "12.11 Medical standard (For all posts):
12.11.1 Medical Examination: All the candidates who qualify in Paper-II will be medically examined by the Medical Officer of the CAPFs or any other Medical Officer or Assistant Surgeon belonging to Grade-I of any Central/ State Govt. Hospital or Dispensary. Review Medical Examination (RME) of the candidates, who are found to be unfit during Detailed Medical Examination(DME), will be conducted in continuation of DME preferably on the next day of DME. Decision of Re-
Medical Board/Review Medical Board will be final and no appeal/representation against the decision of the Re- Medical Board/Review Medical Board will be entertained."
3.2. He stated that the applicant was disqualified in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Examination (RME) as well.
3.3. Learned counsel further relied upon the OM dated 20.05.2015, which reads as under:-
"Subject: Revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs &AR.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's UO No.V 18011/24/ADG(Med)/WP-RKV/2014 dated 05th Dec 2014 forwarding therewith the draft uniform guidelines (Booklet) f or medical examination test for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs & AR prepared by the Committee headed by Dr Mukesh Saxena, lG (Med), BSF with Medical Officers from other CAPFs and the comments/suggestions furnished by the CAPFs & AR thereof and to say that the draft uniform guidelines on the subject was examined in this Ministry in consultation with the ADG(Med), CAPFs & AR and approved by the competent authority.
2. The booklet (90 pages) containing approved revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs &AR is enclosed herewith for implementation.
3. This issues with the approval of Union Home Minister."
2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV 3.4. Learned counsel also drew attention to serial no. 18 of the 'General Grounds for Rejection" of Revised Medical Guidelines-2015 (Annexure-R/3), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that "any type of hernia" is liable to be a ground for rejection of the candidate. 3.5. In support of respondents' case, learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal No. 738-741/2022 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Koushik Paul. He also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14189/2024 in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Om Prakash.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as the limitation ground is concerned, the result of the applicant was declared on 10.06.2024 and the present O.A. has been filed in April, 2025 i.e., within the period of one year.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. Having carefully examined the factual matrix of the case, as well as the law relied upon by both parties, on 2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV the issue of the medical condition, namely, Hernia, reference may be made to Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and Others (Order dated 12 July 2023 in CWP No. 10998/2022 (O&M)), wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows:--
"5. The petitioner was suffering from Umbilical Hernia and got operated on 04.02.2022 i.e. prior to examination by Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board has not considered the fact that petitioner has already got operated Hernia, thus, respondent was bound to consider case of the petitioner for appointment as driver."
6.2 In Dharamvir Singh v the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Order dated 19 July 2019 in W.P.(C) No.444/2019), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
"It is true that the petitioner was examined twice over and was found to be medically unfit.
However, considering the nature of ailment and medical condition, the issue appears to be remediable and not of any permanent character.
We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondent-authorities to constitute a fresh Board of Medical Professionals who may undertake medical examination of the petitioner afresh. Let a Medical Board of three medical professionals having expertise in the field be constituted by the Director of K.G.M.U. Lucknow.
The medical board upon being constitute, may send an appropriate communication to the petitioner within 7 days, notice to appear before the Medical Board. The decision taken by the Medical Board as regards the medical condition and fitness of the petitioner shall be binding on either side."
6.3 In Staff Selection Commission & Ors v. Aman Singh And Ors (W.P. (C) No. 13821/2024) and batch 2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV decided on 24.10.2024 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was observed as under:
"24. In the present case, the DMB, which convened on 19 January 2024, found the respondent to be suffering from varicocele. The Review Medical Board, eight days later, on 27 January 2024, referred the respondent to the BSA hospital for opinion, specifically stating that it was "for recruitment". Once such a reference was made, the Review Medical Board could not merely brush aside the opinion of the hospital to which the respondent had been referred under the carpet. The hospital, on the very same day, opined that, if the respondent underwent surgical intervention, he may have been fit for appointment.
25. Instead of waiting for the respondent to undergo surgical intervention and correct his condition, the RME, a mere two days thereafter, on 29 January 2024, rejected the respondent's candidature, ironically noting, even while doing so, that the respondent required surgical intervention for fitness.
26. If this decision of the Review Medical Board were to be accepted, it would render the very purpose of referring the respondent to the BSA hospital for opinion regarding his entitlement for recruitment completely redundant and an exercise in futility.
27. The respondent claims to have undergone a surgery and that he is now fit for appointment. Unlike the situation which obtained in Rockey, the petitioner has not drawn our attention to any instruction or guideline which mandated only requires the RME to be conducted within a stipulated number of days of the DME. We are of the view, therefore, that the respondent ought to have been allowed to undergo surgery and attempt to correct his condition, especially as the BSA Hospital, to which the Review Medical Board itself referred his case, opined that, with surgery, he would become fit for appointment.
28. Now that the respondent claims to have undergone surgery, we are of the opinion that a fresh assessment of his medical condition, and his fitness for recruitment as a Constable, would eminently serve the interests of justice."
6.4. The condition of hernia and treatment thereof is a condition of temporary unfitness. In the present case, the applicant, as noted above, is already working as a constable post his surgery.
2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV 6.5 The peculiar facts of the present case emerge as follows:
(i) We note that the DME and RME were conducted on the same date.
(ii) Moreover, the applicant has been working as a constable in the Delhi Police since 2018. The ailment has arisen while working, which has not resulted in any impediment to the discharge of his duties as a police official to date.
(iii) There is no opinion expressed by RME to the effect that hernia would cause a hindrance to the performance of his duties.
(iv) The applicant claims to have undergone surgery for a hernia; thus, a fresh assessment of his medical condition and his fitness for recruitment as a departmental candidate for Sub Inspector would eminently serve the interests of justice.
(v) The curability aspect of hernia has not been looked during medical assessment.
7. CONCLUSION:
7.1. In view of the above analysis, we allow the present Original Application. Accordingly, the action of the respondents of rejecting applicant's candidature under 2025.12.16 ANKIT 09:47:13 SAKLANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 80 O.A. No. 1656/2025 Court No. IV departmental candidate quota for the post of Sub-
Inspector is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute an independent Medical Board within 45 days from the date of this order. Based on the medical opinion rendered, the applicant shall be offered appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. 7.2. Since the respondents have contended that no vacancies are presently available, they shall adjust the applicant against future vacancies or create a supernumerary post, as per administrative convenience. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7.3. We make it clear that the applicant shall be entitled to actual benefits from the date of joining. 7.4. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/
2025.12.16
ANKIT
09:47:13
SAKLANI
+05'30'