Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr vs Kavita

$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 172/2025 and CM APPL. 762/2025
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC with
Ms. Vandana Sachdeva, Mr. Ankit
Choudhary, Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Mr.
Sushant Rana, Advocates
versus
KAVITA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sheikh Amina Rehmani,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 07.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 14 May 2024 passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1654/2024.
2. The respondent applied for the post of Constable (Executive)
Female in the Delhi Police, consequent to the Delhi Police
Examination 2023. She cleared all rounds of the selection and was
thereafter subjected to medical examination. A Detailed Medical
2 3
Examination and the Review Medical Examination were conducted.
1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
2
“DME”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:05:14
WP(C) 172/2025 Page 1 of 5

Both certified the respondent as suffering from reduced visual acuity
and low haemoglobin count.
3. The submission of Mr. Raj Kumar, learned CGSC for the
petitioners is that as the DME and the RME were concurrent in their
finding, the Tribunal erred in directing a fresh medical examination of
the respondent. He places reliance on the judgment dated 14
November 2024 of a Division Bench of this Court in WP (C)
13976/2024, Staff Selection Commission v. Brij Kishore Meena ,
which was one of the writ petitions decided by the judgement of this
4
Court in Staff Selection Commission v. Amit Goswami . The SLP
preferred by Brij Kishore Meena against the decision of this Court, he
submits, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17
February 2025.
4. Ms. Sheikh Amina Rehmani, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, submits that the present case is
distinguishable from the case of Brij Kishore Meena . She also points
out that the DME report only treated the respondent as temporarily
unit and, therefore, there could not be said to be concurrence of
medical opinion. She submits that the facts of this case are in fact
5
similar to the facts of Staff Selection Commission v. Sanjoo Patel ,
which was also one of the petitions which was disposed of by the
judgement in Amit Goswami .
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
3
“RME”, hereinafter
4
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7985
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:05:14
WP(C) 172/2025 Page 2 of 5

record, we are in agreement with Ms. Rehmani that the present case
does not deserve any interference at our hands. This is not a simple
case of concurrent findings of DME and RME. In fact, there is no such
concurrence as the DME found the respondent only temporarily unfit
on the ground of low visual acuity and low Haemoglobin count. As
we have noted in our order in Sanjoo Patel , where there are separate
entries for temporarily unfit and unfit, and the Examining Authority
records that the candidate is only temporarily unfit, that has to be
given its due importance.
6. We note, with a considerable degree of disquietude, that on the
very same day i.e. 24 January 2024, when the respondent was found
temporarily unfit in the DME on the ground of low visual acuity and
hemoglobin, she was again subjected to the RME which,
understandably, arrived at the same finding.
7. Needless to say, if both examinations take place on the same
day, there would be hardly any chance of any difference between
them. It cannot be expected that any defect in vision or low
hemoglobin would be cured within the span of one day.
8. Particularly, in view of the fact that the DME report only found
the respondent to be temporarily unfit on the ground of low visual
acuity and low hemoglobin, we are of the opinion that it was
completely unjustified on the part of the petitioner to conduct an RME
on the very same day.
5
WP (C) 13998/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:05:14
WP(C) 172/2025 Page 3 of 5

9. Indeed, this would reduce the exercise of conducting an RME to
a mere formality.
10. This case, therefore, cannot be compared with the case of Brij
Kishore Meena, in which there is no observation by this Court that
both examinations took place on the same day or that, in the DME, the
candidate was found only to be temporarily unfit.
11. In that view of the matter as (i) the DME found the respondent
only to be temporarily unfit on the ground of low visual acuity and
hemoglobin, and (ii) the RME was conducted on the very same day,
we are of the opinion that the facts of this case are peculiar and that
the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in directing a fresh medical
examination to be conducted.
12. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal.
13. Let compliance with the order of the Tribunal be ensured by
conducting a fresh medical examination of the respondent within two
weeks from today on a date and time which would be communicated
to Ms. Rehmani’s email ID by the petitioner during the course of the
day.
14. Ms. Rehmani undertakes, on behalf of her client, that her client
would remain bound by the decision of the fresh medical examination,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:05:14
WP(C) 172/2025 Page 4 of 5

whichever way it goes.
15. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 7, 2026 /yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:05:14
WP(C) 172/2025 Page 5 of 5