Disposed

Staff Selection Commission and Ors. v. Swati

Delhi HC13 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15741/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SSC challenged a CAT order directing re-medical examination of a Constable aspirant by a Medical Board including a dermatologist to assess functional fitness under Clause 13.2 (no tattoo on right forearm). The High Court found nothing objectionable in the order, asked the dermatologist to note its observations in Deepak Yadav, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

$~88

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15741/2024, CM APPL. 66102/2024 & CM APPL. 66103/2024

¶4

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, SPC with Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Drishti Saraf and Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SWATI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL) % 13.11.2024

¶10

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶11

CM APPL. 66103/2024 (Exemption)

¶12

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

2. Application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 15741/2024 & CM APPL. 66102/2024 [Stay]

¶15

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

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

“Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised

¶18

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 15741/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2024 18:04:48

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

in this OA stands concluded by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 597/2024 titled as Deepak Yadav v Staff Selection Commission & Ors. decided on 22.04.2024.

¶21

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 (supra) case are reproduced below:-

¶22

“In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA(s) by directing the respondents to get the applicant(s) re-medical 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 re-medical 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.”

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

5. There is no justification whatsoever for the petitioner

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 15741/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2024 18:04:48

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

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.

¶30

6. Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, 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.

¶31

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 .

¶32

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

¶33

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶34

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

¶35

NOVEMBER 13, 2024

¶36

¶37

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶38