Full Judgment Text
$~108
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5437/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (HDQRS) & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC
along with Ms. Priya Singh, GP
and Ms. Rebina Rai, Adv.
versus
BABITA VERMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha
Mazumdar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 24760/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5437/2025 & CM APPL. 24761/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned
Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 3484 of 2024 titled
‘Babita Verma v. SSC & Anr.’ , allowing the said O.A. filed by the
respondent herein with the following direction:
“7. In our considered view, the ratio of the
aforesaid Order applies to the facts of the
present case as well. Accordingly, the OA is
also disposed of with a direction to the
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:03.05.2025
17:59:43
competent authority amongst the respondent to
conduct a fresh medical examination of the
applicant by way of constituting an
appropriate medical board in any government
hospital except the hospital which has already
conducted the initial and the review medical
examination. Appropriate orders with respect
to the candidature of the applicant on the basis
of the outcome of such an independent/fresh
medical examination be passed thereafter
under intimation to the applicant.
8. The aforesaid directions shall be complied
with within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
In the event the applicant is being declared
medically fit, subject to her meeting other
criteria, she shall be given appointment
forthwith. The applicant, in such an
eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of
all consequential benefits, however, strictly on
notional basis. No costs.”
3. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Exe.)
Female pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the petitioner on
01.09.2023 for the said post.
4. She was declared medically ‘unfit’ for the appointment by the
Detailed Medical Examination (‘DME’) Board vide a report dated
23.01.2024 with the following remark:
“ Unfit on account of Little finger deformity
middle IP jts.”
5. In Paragraph 14 of the said report, the DME reported an
abnormality in the Loco motor system of the respondent as under:
“ Little finger (L) Hand fixed flexion of MIP
joints.”
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:03.05.2025
17:59:43
6. Dissatisfied with the above report, the respondent requested for
a Review Medical Examination (‘RME’).
7. At the stage of the RME, the RME Board referred the
respondent for an opinion of an Orthopaedic Department for any
functional deformity. The Radiologist, by its report dated 25.01.2024,
reported as under:
“ Soft tissue are normal.
There is loss of joint space involving PIP
joint of right little finger & the same is held in
flexion position.
Rest of the bones & joints appear normal.
No cortical breech/budding.
IMP:
F/S/O Osteoarthritis changes in PIP joint of
right little finger with flexion deformity.”
8. Along with the report are the X-Ray films of the right hand of
the respondent. It is important to note here that the Orthopaedic
Department had referred for an X-Ray of the Right Hand of the
respondent.
9. Based on the above report, the Review Medical Board by its
report dated 26.01.2024, declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for
appointment with the following remark:
“ Flexion Deformity right little finger.”
10. The respondent obtained an opinion from the M.G.M. Medical
College and approached the learned Tribunal in form of the above
OA, challenging the reports of the medical examination conducted by
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:03.05.2025
17:59:43
the petitioner
11. As noted hereinabove, the petition has been allowed by the
learned Tribunal with the above direction.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present
case, the RME, before declaring the respondent ‘unfit’ for
appointment, had referred her to an Orthopaedic Specialist for an
opinion on functional effect of the deformity in the hand. It is based
on the opinion of the Orthopaedic Specialist, that she was declared
‘unfit’ for appointment. He submits that this report could not have
been interfered with only because of a vague report obtained by the
respondent from a Government Hospital.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel or the respondent, who
appears on an advance notice of this petition, submits that there were
clear contradictions between the report of the DME and the RME;
while the DME finds a deformity in the Left Hand of the respondent,
the RME finds this deformity in the Right Hand.
14. He submits that in any case, a clear report on the functional
effect of the deformity has not been mentioned by the Orthopaedic
Department to whom the respondent had been referred by the RME.
15. He submits that given these facts, in terms of the judgement of
this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh,
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, no fault can be found that the learned
Tribunal directing the respondent to be re-examined by a Medical
Board.
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:03.05.2025
17:59:43
counsels for the parties.
17. In the present case, the respondent had been declared medically
‘unfit’ for appointment by the DME, finding a deformity in her little
finger of the Left Hand, while the RME declared her ‘unfit’ for
appointment finding a deformity in the right hand. There is, therefore,
clear contradiction between the reports of the DME and the RME.
Why the respondent was referred for an X-Ray of the Right Hand, is
also not becoming evident from the record.
18. Added to above, while the RME specifically referred the
respondent to the Orthopaedic Specialist for an opinion on the
functional effect of the deformity, the Orthopaedic Specialist gives its
opinion on the Right Hand Deformity of the respondent that too is in
not very clear terms.
19. Given the above peculiar facts and following the judgement of
this Court in Aman Singh (supra), we therefore, find no fault in the
direction issued by the respondent.
20. The petition along with pending application is, accordingly
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 28, 2025 /Pr/Mn/Ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:03.05.2025
17:59:43