Disposed

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Sonu

Delhi HC30 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/13610/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SSC challenged a Tribunal order directing a remedical examination by a dermatologist to assess a candidate's functional fitness for Delhi Police Constable in light of Clause 13.2 (no tattoo on right forearm). The Court found the challenge unjustified and disposed of the petition, asking the dermatologist to keep in mind the Court's earlier observations in Deepak Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; dermatologist to examine respondent per Tribunal directions, considering Deepak Yadav observations, expeditiously.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Sonu — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13610/2024

¶4

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.D. Sharma, SPC.

¶5

versus

¶6

SONU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Setu Niket, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms. Unnimaya, Mr. Ishan Singh, Mr. Devansh Khatter and Ms. Chetna, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

¶8

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL) 30.09.2024

¶10

CM APPL. 56971/2024 (for exemption)

¶11

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

2. Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 13610/2024, CM APPL. 56970/2024

¶14

3. The order under challenge in this petition reads as under:

¶15

“Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in this OA stands concluded by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 597/2024 titled as Deepak Yadav v/s Staff Selection Commission & Ors . decided on 22.04.2024.

¶16

For parity of reasons, we allow the present OA in terms of the directions given in the aforesaid OA. However, for the sake of the convenience, the directions given by the Tribunal in Deepak Yadav

¶17

Signature Not Ver ified

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

W.P.(C) 13610/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.10.2024 13:26:34

¶20

(supra) case are reproduced below: -

¶21

“In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA(s) by directing the respondents to get the applicant(s) remedical examination done by a duly constituted Medical Board which would include dermatologist who shall opinion in light of Clause 13.2 as to arrive at a just conclusion whether the applicant(s) are functionally fit for appointment to post of Constable in Delhi Police. It is directed that the remedical examination shall be undertaken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to convey the decision to the respective applicant(s). In the event, the applicant(s) are found to be fit, further action shall be taken in accordance with law. No order as to costs.”

¶22

In view of the above, this OA is also disposed of in the light of aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.”

¶23

4. At the very outset, we do not see why such an order was even challenged before this Court. All that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has done is to direct the respondent to be examined by a dermatologist, who would assess the respondent’s functional fitness for appointment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police in the light of Clause 13.2 of the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) male and female in the Delhi Police Examination 2023. Clause 13.2 does not allow an aspirant to the post of Constable to possess any tattoo on her, or his, right forearm.

¶24

5. There is no justification whatsoever for the petitioner challenging such an innocuous order. There can be no reservation whatsoever with the candidate concerned being examined by a Dermatologist, who would assess whether the candidate does or does not possess a tattoo on the right forearm.

¶25

Signature Not Ver ified

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

W.P.(C) 13610/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.10.2024 13:26:34

¶28

6. Mr. Setu Niket, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 24 July 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Staff Selection Commission v Deepak Yadav¹ . In that case, this Court actually physically examined the candidate concerned and arrived at a conclusion that there was no visible tattoo on the right forearm of the candidate, as seen through the naked eye.

¶29

7. Instead of following that practice, we deem it appropriate to direct the Dermatologist, who would examine the respondent in terms of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, to also keep in mind the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Deepak Yadav .

¶30

8. The Dermatologist, who would re-examine the respondent, is requested to take a decision on all such cases as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶32

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶33

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶34

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024/ dsn

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162

¶37

Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 13610/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.10.2024 13:26:34

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Sonu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Sonu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar & Anr. Vs Uco Bank

Tarvan Kumar Vs Sdmc and Ors.

Blessing Society Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Tejveer Singh

Durga Prasad Patodia & Ors. Vs Secretary Revenue Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

MD Mushtaque Vs the District and Sessions Judge through Officer in-Charge and Others

Shri Vikas K Chadha Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ministry of Railways and Others Vs Shri Mohan Singh Sandhu

Managing Commitee, Maxfort School Vs Anushi Arora & Anr.

Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. Vs Sushila and Anr.

Khyali Ram and Ors. Vs Indira Gandhi Hospital and Ors.