Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Swaraj

Delhi HC11 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/13719/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical unfitness in recruitment — Constable (Executive); cubitus valgus; tattoo mark on right hand and forearm; Detailed Medical Examination (DME) report 21.01.2024; Review Medical Examination (RME) report 27.01.2024; specialist orthopaedic opinion, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Shahdara (GTBH) 25.01.2024; outside/civil hospital reports (Rohtak and Jhajjar) cannot reopen expert medical opinion; Tribunal cautioned against one-size-fits-all disposal by analogy (O.A. No. 519/2024, Teekaram Singh Meena vs. SSC and Ors.); reliance on Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600; writ petition allowed; CAT Order dated 10.05.2024 set aside; decided ex parte.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's Order dated 10.05.2024 in O.A. No. 1858/2024 was set aside. ¶¶37

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Swaraj — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Tribunal's Order dated 10.05.2024 in O.A. No. 1858/2024 was set aside.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's Order dated 10.05.2024 disposing of O.A. No. 1858/2024 merely by analogy with its earlier order in O.A. No. 519/2024, without appreciating the peculiar facts of the respondent's medical unfitness, could be sustained. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Tribunal erred in passing the Impugned Order by merely relying on its earlier order in O.A. No. 519/2024 (Teekaram Singh Meena vs. SSC and Ors.) without appreciating the peculiar facts of the case; the Tribunal is expected to appreciate the facts of each case rather than deciding rejections of candidates on medical unfitness by applying a one-size-fits-all policy.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent had been examined by medical experts (DME/RME, with specialist orthopaedic opinion from GTBH), their opinion could not be brushed aside in a casual manner by the Tribunal, nor could the expert medical opinion be reopened merely on the basis of Civil Hospital, Rohtak and Jhajjar reports relied on by the respondent; in reaching this conclusion the Court placed reliance on its Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; the Tribunal's Order dated 10.05.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, JJ.), decision dated 11.09.2025, W.P.(C) 13719/2024 — The Staff Selection Commission's writ petition assailed the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench's Order dated 10.05.2024 in O.A. No. 1858/2024 (Swaraj v. Staff Selection Commission and Ors.), by which the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. merely on the analogy of O.A. No. 519/2024 (Teekaram Singh Meena vs. SSC and Ors.), directing compliance within twelve weeks. The respondent had been declared ‘unfit’ for Constable (Executive) — cubitus valgus and a tattoo mark on the right hand and forearm (DME report dated 21.01.2024; RME report dated 27.01.2024, supported by a specialist orthopaedic opinion from GTB Hospital, Shahdara dated 25.01.2024). Heard ex parte (respondent absent despite notice), the Court held: (i) the Tribunal erred in deciding by a one-size-fits-all analogy without appreciating the peculiar facts of each medical-unfitness case; and (ii) once a candidate has been examined by medical experts, their opinion cannot be brushed aside casually nor reopened on the basis of Civil Hospital, Rohtak and Jhajjar reports relied on by the candidate, consistent with the Co-ordinate Bench ruling in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600. Petition allowed; the Tribunal's Order was set aside.

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 11.09.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 13719/2024 & CM APPL. 57431/2024, CM APPL. 57433/2024

¶5

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Shreeya Sud, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SWARAJ .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 10.05.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1858/2024 titled Swaraj v. Staff Selection Commission and Ors . disposing of the said O.A. with the following directions: -

¶12

“4. In the conspectus of things, we find that the facts in the present case and the ones in the aforesaid OA are similar, in all fours. Accordingly, the instant OA is also disposed of on the same analogy. Respondents are hereby directed to comply with the aforesaid directions (OA No. 519/2024 – Teekaram Singh Meena vs. SSC and Ors.) within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13719/2024 NEGI Signing Da te:1 8.09.2025 18:44:30

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

copy of this order.”

¶17

In spite of service of notice, none has appeared for the respondent. We, therefore, have proceeded ex parte against the respondent.

¶18

At the outset, we would note that the learned Tribunal, in passing its Impugned Order, has merely placed reliance on its earlier order passed in O.A. No.519/2024 titled Teekaram Singh Meena vs. SSC and Ors. without appreciating the peculiar facts of the present case. We have, in other Judgments of ours stated that the learned Tribunal is expected to appreciate the facts of each case rather than deciding these cases of rejection of candidates on medical unfitness by applying a one size fit all policy.

¶19

Be that as it may, we have examined the present petition on merits as well.

¶20

In the present case, the respondent had been declared ‘unfit’ for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) made on the ground of being found unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination vide report dated 21.01.2024 on the following grounds: -

¶21

“ 1. Cubitus Valgus

¶22

2. Tatto mark on Rt. hand & forearm”

¶23

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent applied for a Review Medical Examination. The Review Medical Examination Board referred the respondent to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi (‘GTBH’) for an opinion of an Orthopedic. A Board of Doctors at GTBH, which included specialist orthopedics, declared that the

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13719/2024 NEGI Signing Da te:1 8.09.2025 18:44:30

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

respondent has an issue with the elbow extension vide a report dated 25.01.2024. Based on this report, the Review Medical Examination Board also declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment, vide its report dated 27.01.2024, on account of the tattoo as well as on account of cubitus valgus.

¶28

In the present case, as the respondent had been examined by the medical experts, the opinion of such experts could not have been brushed aside in a casual manner by the learned Tribunal. Merely because the respondent placed reliance on certain report of Civil Hospital, Rohtak and Jhajjar, the medical opinion of the expert could not have been reopened. In this regard, we place reliance on the Judgment of our Co-ordinate Bench in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, wherein this Court had inter-alia held as under:

¶29

“10.38 In our considered opinion, the following principles would apply:

¶30

xxx

¶31

(v) Opinions of private, or even government, hospitals, obtained by the concerned candidate, cannot constitute a legitimate basis for referring the case for re-examination. At the same time, if the condition is such as require a specialist's view, and the Medical Board and Review Medical Board do not include such specialists, then the Court may be justified in directing the candidate to be reexamined by a specialist or by a Medical Board which includes a specialist. In passing such a direction, the Court may legitimately place reliance on the opinion of such a specialist, even if privately obtained by the candidate. It is reiterated, however, that, if the Medical Board or the Review Medical

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13719/2024 NEGI Signing Da te:1 8.09.2025 18:44:30

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Board consists of doctors who are sufficiently equipped and qualified to pronounce on the candidate's condition, then an outside medical opinion obtained by the candidate of his own volition, even if favourable to him and contrary to the findings of the DME or the RME, would not justify referring the candidate for a fresh medical examination. ”

¶36

(emphasis supplied)

¶37