Dismissed¶36

Suneel Rawat v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Oct 2025W.P.(C)/15709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 15709/2025 (CM APPL. 64317/2025), oral judgment dated 16.10.2025 by C. Hari Shankar, J. (bench incl. Om Prakash Shukla, J.): medical unfitness in SSC recruitment of Sub-Inspectors for Delhi Police/CAPFs; DME (18.09.2025) and RME concurrent findings of benign solitary pulmonary nodule with calcification, besides scoliosis and knock knee; Clause 12.11.4 medical standard (good mental and bodily health, free from physical defect); scope of judicial review of medical standards confined to arbitrariness, perverseness or violation of statutory norms; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Clause 12.11.4 of the examination notice disqualifies any candidate who is not in good mental and bodily health or who suffers from any physical defect. ¶8

Suneel Rawat Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, found unfit in the DME and RME on account of a benign solitary pulmonary nodule (besides scoliosis and knock knee), could be disqualified when the ailment is contended to be not one of the disabilities notified for disqualifying candidates for recruitment as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Clause 12.11.4 of the examination notice disqualifies any candidate who is not in good mental and bodily health or who suffers from any physical defect.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Given the concurrent findings of the DME and the RME as to the existence of a benign solitary pulmonary nodule with calcifications in the right upper lobe of the petitioner's lung, the Court is not in a position to render any assistance to the petitioner.

¶9

Key takeaways

The benign nature of the nodule does not assist the petitioner; a nodule in the chest is etiologically attributable to infection or some like cause.ratio¶34
Medical standards for recruitment to the Armed Forces are qualitatively much higher than for civilian posts, and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the respondents' discretion therein unless it is arbitrary, perverse or violative of any norms or statutory requirements.ratio¶35
No such infirmity (arbitrariness, perverseness or violation of norms or statutory requirements) plagues the respondents' decision in the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recruitment - Sub-Inspector (Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces) via Staff Selection Commission Examination (Recruitment Notice dated 4 March 2024): Petitioner, having cleared all selection stages, was declared unfit at the DME (18.09.2025) for scoliosis, knock knee and non-homogeneous nodular opacities, and at the RME for a benign solitary pulmonary nodule with tiny internal calcification in the right upper lung field (CT report dated 23.09.2025). His contention that the ailment figured in none of the notified disqualifying disabilities was rejected: Clause 12.11.4 of the notice mandates good mental and bodily health free from physical defect; the concurrent DME/RME findings stood; and medical standards for Armed Forces recruitment being qualitatively much higher than for civilian posts, the Court does not sit in appeal over the recruiting authority's discretion absent arbitrariness, perverseness or violation of norms or statutory requirements. No such infirmity was found; writ petition dismissed. (Coram: C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.; oral judgment dated 16.10.2025.)

¶1

$~2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 15709/2025 & CM APPL. 64317/2025 SUNEEL RAWAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Mr. Shubham Singh, Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Ms. Pratiksha Jain, Ms. Mamta Jain, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, SPC for UOI with Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, GP

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶8

JUDGMENT(ORAL) % 16.10.2025

¶9

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶10

1. The petitioner aspires to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces. He applied, pursuant to Recruitment Notice dated 4 March 2024, issued by the Staff Selection Commission, for recruitment in that regard. He cleared all stages of selection process.

¶11

2. However, in the Detailed Medical Examination¹ which took place on 18 September 2025, he was declared unfit on the ground that he suffered from Scoliosis, Knock Knee and Non-Homogeneous Nodular Opacities in the right upper zone of the chest.

¶12

1 “DME” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 15709/2025 Signing Date:17.10.2025 19:39:19

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

3. He was thereafter subjected to a Review Medical Examination² , which took place thereafter. A day earlier, the petitioner was subjected to a CT Scan. The final impression of the CT Scan, reads thus:

¶15

“Benign solitary pulmonary nodule with tiny internal calcification in apical segments of right upper lung field as described above.”

¶16

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the RME also declared the petitioner unsuitable for recruitment, on account of the existence of a Solitary Pulmonary Nodule in the right lobe of his lung.

¶17

5. We had called on the respondent to take instructions. Today, Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, learned SPC, has handed over to us, a copy of the CT report of the petitioner’s chest, dated 23 September 2025. We have already reproduced the final impression contained in the said report.

¶18

6. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fervently contends that the ailment on the basis of which the petitioner was found unfit is not one of the disabilities notified for disqualifying a candidate for recruitment as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces.

¶19

7. He has drawn our attention to the stipulations on page 39 regarding the medical standards, as contained in the notice for the examination, which reads thus:

¶20

2 “RME” hereinafter Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 15709/2025 Signing Date:17.10.2025 19:39:19

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

“12.11 Medical standard (For all posts):

¶24

12.11.1 Medical Examination : All the candidates who qualify in Paper-II will be medically examined by the Medical Officer of the CAPFs or any other Medical Officer or Assistant Surgeon belonging to Grade-I of any Central/ State Govt. Hospital or Dispensary. Review Medical Examination (RME) of the candidates, who are found to be unfit during Detailed Medical Examination (DME), will be conducted in continuation of DME preferably on the next day of DME. Decision of Re-Medical Board/Review Medical Board will be final and no appeal/representation against the decision of the Re-Medical Board/Review Medical Board will be entertained.

¶25

12.11.2 Eye sight : The minimum near vision should be N6 (better eye) and N9 (worse eye). The minimum distant vision should be 6/6 (better eye) and 6/9 (worse eye) of both eyes without any correction like wearing glasses or surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity. In right handed person, the right eye is better eye and vice versa.

¶26

12.11.3 The candidate must not have knock knee, flat foot, varicose vein or squint in eyes and they should possess high colour vision.

¶27

12.11.4 They must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of the duties.”

¶28

8. Clause 12.11.4 of the aforesaid notice clearly disqualifies any candidate who is not in good mentally and bodily health or suffering from any physical defect for entitlement for recruitment as SubInspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces.

¶29

9. As there are concurrent findings of the DME and RME of the existence of a benign solitary pulmonary nodule with calcifications in the right upper lobe of the petitioner’s lung, we are not in a position to render any assistance to the petitioner in this case.

¶30

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphasized the fact that

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 15709/2025 Signing Date:17.10.2025 19:39:19

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

the nodule is benign. However, a nodule in the chest is a nodule in the chest, and is etiologically attributable to infection, or some like cause.

¶35

11. The standards which are required to be satisfied by candidates seeking recruitment to Armed Forces, are qualitatively much higher than those for recruitment to civilian posts. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the discretion of the respondents in that regard unless it is arbitrary, perverse or violative of any norms or statutory requirements. No such infirmity plagues the decision of the respondent in the present case.

¶36

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶38

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶39

OCTOBER 16, 2025 /rjd

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 15709/2025 Signing Date:17.10.2025 19:39:19

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Suneel Rawat v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Rawat v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Taslim Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Harjinder Kaur Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Brahmjeet Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Anand Talwar Vs University of Delhi

Seth Motilal Teacher Education College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Kamlesh Virmani & Ors. Vs Punjabi Academy through Its Secretary & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Dibakar Behera

Seth Motilal Teacher Education College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Dilwar Singh Rana Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jagdish Bhimraj Solanki Vs M/S Jp Products

Suresh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited Vs Wow Burger & Anr.

Dr. Amit Prasad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Munendra Kumar Das Vs Union of India & Anr.