RME conducted on the same day as a "temporarily unfit" DME finding is a mere formality justifying fresh medical examination.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing a fresh medical examination when the DME and RME findings were concurrent

The court held

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment and declined to interfere with the order. It held that the RME conducted on the same day as a DME finding of temporary unfitness was unjustified

It also directed

The High Court directed the petitioners to conduct a fresh medical examination of the Respondent within two weeks, with the Respondent’s counsel undertaking that the client would be bound by the fresh result. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The Respondent applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Female in the Delhi Police Examination 2023. After clearing the selection rounds, she underwent a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on January 24, 2024, which found her "temporarily unfit" due to reduced visual acuity and low hemoglobin count

pp. 1-2, para 2 · p. 3, para 6

On the very same day, the petitioners conducted a Review Medical Examination (RME), which concurred with the DME’s findings

pp. 3, para 6-8

The Respondent challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1654/2024, which directed a fresh medical examination. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to set aside the CAT’s direction

pp. 1-2, para 1-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing a fresh medical examination when the DME and RME findings were concurrent

p. 2, para 3

ii.2. Whether an RME conducted on the same day as a DME finding of "temporary unfitness" constitutes a valid medical review

pp. 3, para 8-9

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles established in Staff Selection Commission v. Amit Goswami (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7985) and specifically Staff Selection Commission v. Sanjoo Patel [WP (C) 13998/2024], which distinguish between "unfit" and "temporarily unfit" status

pp. 2-3, para 3-5

The rule dictates that where medical entries differentiate between these categories, a finding of "temporary unfitness" must be given due weight, implying a condition that could potentially be rectified over time.

p. 3, para 5

Furthermore, the court distinguished this from the precedent in Staff Selection Commission v. Brij Kishore Meena [WP (C) 13976/2024], where no such finding of temporary unfitness or same-day re-examination was present

p. 4, para 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that this was not a standard case of concurrent medical findings because the DME specifically categorized the Respondent as "temporarily unfit"

p. 3, para 5

The Court expressed "disquietude" over the fact that the RME was conducted on the same day as the DME

p. 3, para 6

It held that conducting a review immediately after the initial exam for conditions like low hemoglobin or visual acuity reduces the RME to a "mere formality," as such conditions cannot reasonably be expected to change within 24 hours

p. 3, para 7 · p. 4, para 9

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioners’ reliance on Brij Kishore Meena was misplaced due to the peculiar factual circumstances of the instant case—namely, the specific finding of "temporary" status and the procedural absurdity of a same-day review

pp. 4, para 10-11

05Holding

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment and declined to interfere with the order. It held that the RME conducted on the same day as a DME finding of temporary unfitness was unjustified

p. 3, para 8 · p. 4, para 12

pp. 4, para 13-14 · p. 5, para 15

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF