Union of India & Ors. Vs Manish Sharma — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union of India & Ors. Vs Manish Sharma — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; W.P.(C) 5976/2025 and the pending application (CM APPL. 27382/2025) were dismissed, leaving intact the Tribunal's direction for a fresh medical examination of the respondent. (CM APPL. 27497/2025 seeking exemption had been allowed at the outset, subject to all just exceptions.)

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2024 is barred by delay and laches, having been filed after much delay and without any explanation for such delay. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition, as it relates to a recruitment process, is highly belated, having been filed after much delay and without any explanation, and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.

Ratio / Principle

On merits, there is a clear inconsistency between the DME and the RME: the DME found the respondent 'unfit' for 'Defective Vision and Umbilical Hernia' while the RME found him 'unfit' for 'Left Side Varicocele'; relying on Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, a notable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME is a situation in which interference is justified.

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the petition has no merit and, along with the pending application, is dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's direction for a fresh medical examination intact.ratio¶14
It is made clear that if, in the fresh Review Medical Board examination, the respondent is again found 'unfit' for appointment for the reason given by the RME, the result of that report shall be binding on the respondent and a challenge thereto shall not be maintainable.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / Recruitment – Constable (Executive) Male, Delhi Police 2023 – Medical unfitness – Candidate cleared initial stages but was declared 'unfit' by the DME (report dated 19.01.2024) for 'Defective Vision and Umbilical Hernia' and again 'unfit' by the RME (report dated 23.01.2024) for 'Left Side Varicocele'; on his independent government-hospital report declaring him 'fit', the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench allowed his O.A. and directed a fresh medical examination by an appropriate medical board in a government hospital other than the one which conducted the initial and review examinations – Union of India's writ petition dismissed: (i) the petition, filed after much delay and without explanation and relating to a recruitment process, was highly belated and liable to be dismissed on delay and laches alone; (ii) on merits, there was a clear inconsistency between the DME and RME findings, and following Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, a notable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME is a well-defined situation in which interference with the Medical Board/RME outcome is legitimate – Court clarified that if the fresh Review Medical Board again finds the respondent 'unfit' for the reason given by the RME, that result shall be binding on the respondent and shall not be open to challenge.

$~105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 06.05.2025

W.P.(C) 5976/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Amit Gupta, SPC and Ms.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC Mr.Vikas Kumar, Pairvi Officer

versus MANISH SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 27497/2025 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5976/2025 & CM APPL. 27382/2025.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „learned Tribunal‟) in O.A. No.1031/2024 titled Manish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. , allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

“ 9. The present OA is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government medical hospital except the Hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5976/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 12:11:08

Page 1 of 5

10. Needless to say that the competent authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination. 11. The directions contained herein shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of the applicant being declared medically fit and subject to his meeting other criteria, he shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis.”

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Male, pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2023 issued by the petitioners herein for the recruitment of Constable (Executive) (Male and Female) in the Delhi Police,2023.

The respondent successfully cleared the initial stages of the recruitment, however, he was declared „unfit‟ for appointment to the said post by the Detailed Medical Examination Board (in short, „DME‟), vide its report dated 19.01.2024, on the following grounds: “ Defective Vision and Umbilical Hernia .”

Aggrieved thereby, the respondent applied for a Review Medical Examination (in Short, „RME‟). The RME Board, vide report dated 23.01.2024, declared the respondent as „unfit‟ for appointment finding him to be suffering from “ Left Side Varicocele ”

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5976/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 12:11:08

Page 2 of 5

The respondent thereafter got himself examined at the Government Hospital, where he was declared „fit‟. Armed with the said report the respondent approached the learned Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the RME, consisting of senior doctors, has found the respondent suffering from „ Left Side Varicocele’ and, therefore, rightly declared the respondent „unfit‟ for appointment. He submits that the said finding cannot be ignored and that the respondent having undertaken to accept the terms and conditions of the recruitment process, cannot now challenge the same.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that there is a clear inconsistency between the reports of the DME and the RME inasmuch as the DME found the respondent „unfit‟ on the ground of „ Defective Vision and Umbilical Hernia ‟, while the RME found the respondent „unfit‟ on the ground of „ Left Side Varicocele’. He submits that on account of these inconsistencies, the respondent should be granted another opportunity for medical examination.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

At the outset, we note that this petition challenges the Order dated 11.03.2024 whereby the learned Tribunal had directed that the respondent be allowed to appear for the fresh Medical Examination to be conducted by the petitioners. The petition has been filed after much delay and without giving any explanation for such delay. The petition,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5976/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 12:11:08

Page 3 of 5

as it relates to a recruitment process is, therefore, highly belated and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. 11. Be that as it may, we have also considered the claim of the petitioners on merits.

In Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, this Court, while giving the illustration of situations where a Court can legitimately interfere with the final outcome of the examination of the candidate by the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board, held the same to be justified where there is a notable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME. We quote from the judgment as under:

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

xxx

(iv) The situations in which a Court can legitimately interfere with the final outcome of the examination of the candidate by the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board are limited, but well-defined. Some of these may be enumerated as under:

xxx

(b) If there is a notable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME, or the Appellate Medical Board, interference may be justified. In this, the Court has to be conscious of what constitutes a “discrepancy”. A situation in which, for example, the DME finds the candidate to be suffering from three medical conditions, whereas the RME, or the Appellate Medical Board, finds the candidate to be suffering only from one of the said three conditions, would not constitute a discrepancy, so long as the candidate is disqualified because of the presence of the condition concurrently found by the DME and the RME or the Appellate Medical Board. This is because, insofar as the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5976/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 12:11:08

Page 4 of 5

existence of the said condition is concerned, there is concurrence and uniformity of opinion between the DME and the RME, or the Appellate Medical Board. In such a circumstance, the Court would ordinarily accept that the candidate suffered from the said condition. Thereafter, as the issue of whether the said condition is sufficient to justify exclusion of the candidate from the Force is not an aspect which would concern the Court, the candidate's petition would have to be rejected.”

As is evident from the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the documents placed on record, there is a clear inconsistency between the DME and the RME i nasmuch as the DME found the respondent „unfit‟ on the ground of „ Defective Vision and Umbilical Hernia ‟ while the RME found the respondent „unfit‟ on the ground of „ Left Side Varicocele’.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same, along with the pending application, is accordingly dismissed.

However, we make it clear that in case in the fresh Review Medical Board examination, the respondent is again found to be „unfit‟ for appointment for the reason given by the RME, the result of the said report shall be binding on the respondent and a challenge thereto shall not be maintainable.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

MAY 6, 2025/DG

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5976/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 12:11:08

Page 5 of 5