Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Krishna Pal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Krishna Pal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed; the Impugned Order of the Tribunal was set aside; the exemption application (CM APPL. 70170/2024) was allowed subject to all just exceptions; the pending application was disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order dated 04.04.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, disposing of the respondent's O.A. — passed by simply placing reliance on the earlier order in Anjali v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. without considering the peculiar facts of the case — could be sustained.

Court's answer

The file containing the medical examination showed that the Review Medical Examination Board, inter alia, consisted of an expert Ophthalmologist (Eye Specialist).

Ratio / Principle

Where the findings of a Medical Examination Board are based on an expert's opinion, they should normally not be interfered with (as held by this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 7600).

Key takeaways

The Order passed by the Tribunal could not be sustained; the medical examination of the respondent cannot be an open-ended process; accordingly the Impugned Order is set aside.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Madhu Jain, JJ.; decision 10.12.2025) allowed W.P.(C) 16599/2024 filed by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench order dated 04.04.2024 in O.A. No.1374/2024 (Krishna Pal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary & Anr.). The respondent, a candidate in the Delhi Police recruitment for Constable (Executive) Male & Female (advertisement dated 01.09.2023), had been declared unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination Board (Report dated 19.01.2024) for 'colour blind, hypertension' and by the Review Medical Examination Board (Report dated 21.01.2024) for 'defective colour vision and hypertension'; the Tribunal nevertheless disposed of his O.A. with directions by simply placing reliance on the order dated 11.03.2024 in O.A. No. 670/2024 (Anjali v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.) without considering the peculiar facts. The records produced showed that the Review Medical Examination Board inter alia consisted of an expert Ophthalmologist (Eye Specialist). Invoking this Court's decision in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 7600 — that where findings of a Medical Examination Board are based on an expert's opinion they should normally not be interfered with — the Court held that the medical examination of the respondent cannot be an open-ended process, found itself unable to sustain the Tribunal's order, and set it aside. None appeared for the respondent despite service of notice.

$~17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 10.12.2025

- W.P.(C) 16599/2024

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms.Theepa Murugesan, SPC with Mr.Yogesh Dubey, Adv. HC Vikash

versus

KRISHNA PAL .....Respondent

Through: None

CORAM:

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

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 70170/2024 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16599/2024 & CM APPL. 70169/2024

This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1374/2024, titled Krishna Pal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary & Anr. , whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with the following directions:

“7. Accordingly, the present OA is also disposed of with the same directions as contained in para 9 to 12 of the order quoted above, however, with a slight modification, taking into consideration the present

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16599/2024 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 13:25:51

Page 1 of 3

circumstances that we allow a period of twelve weeks to the respondents instead of six weeks allowed in the OA quoted above.”

The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners issued an Advertisement on 01.09.2023, calling for applications for an open competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male & Female in Delhi Police. The respondent participated in the same, however, was declared unfit for appointment by the Detailed Medical Examination Board, vide its Report dated 19.01.2024, on the ground of ‘ colour blind, hypertension’. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent applied for a Review Medical Examination. The Review Medical Examination Board also, vide its Report dated 21.01.2024, declared the respondent unfit for appointment on the ground of ‘ defective colour vision and hypertension ’.

The respondent filed the above O.A., challenging these reports, contending that he had sought an independent opinion from a government institution, in which he had been declared fit, both in terms of vision and blood pressure.

The learned Tribunal has passed the above directions by simply placing reliance on the Order dated 11.03.2024 passed in O.A. No. 670/2024, titled Anjali v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. , without considering the peculiar facts of the present case.

Despite service of notice on the respondent, none has appeared for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced before us

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16599/2024 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 13:25:51

Page 2 of 3

the file containing the medical examination of the respondent. The same shows that the Review Medical Examination Board, inter alia , consisted of an expert Ophthalmologist (Eye Specialist).

This Court, in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh , (2024) SCC OnLine Del 7600, has held that where the findings of the Medical Examination Board are based on an expert’s opinion, they should normally not be interfered with.

We are, therefore, unable to sustain the Order passed by the learned Tribunal. The medical examination of the respondent cannot be an open-ended process. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside.

The petition is allowed in the above terms. The pending application is disposed of as infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

MADHU JAIN, J

DECEMBER 10, 2025 /sg/Yg

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16599/2024 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 13:25:51

Page 3 of 3