Dismissed

Staff Selection Commission (Hdqr) & Anr. v. Pratap Kalera

Delhi HC19 May 2025W.P.(C)/732/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against CAT order directing re-medical examination of a candidate declared unfit for Constable (Executive) on grounds of hypertension. The Court found the CAPF medical guidelines requiring hospitalisation and corroborative tests were not followed and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Tribunal's order directing re-medical examination stands; pending application disposed of.

Staff Selection Commission (Hdqr) & Anr. Vs Pratap Kalera — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 19.05.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 732/2025 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (HDQR) & ANR.

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Dr.B. Ramaswamy, CGSC

¶7

versus

¶8

PRATAP KALERA .....Respondent Through (Appearance not given)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 3626/2025 (Exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

W.P.(C) 732/2025 & CM APPL. 3627/2025

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3137/2024, titled Pratap Kalera v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr . , whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein and directed the petitioners to conduct a Re-Medical Examination of the respondent in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 732/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 18:21:30

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

O.A.594/2024, titled Ravina Meena v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., which in turn was based on the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No 1889/2023 titled Manjeet Dhaka v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors .

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the respondents had been found ‘unfit’ for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) by the Detailed Medical Board Examination (DME), on the ground of being suffering from ‘ hypertension ’. He submits that even in the Review Medical Examination (RME), the same findings were reiterated. He submits that all the readings in the DME as well as the RME were above normal, indicating that the respondent suffered from „hypertension‟ . He submits that these reports could not have been set aside by the learned Tribunal in a casual manner, thereby directing the petitioners to carry out a re-medical examination of the respondent. He further places reliance on the Judgement of this Court in Staff Selection Commission and Ors. v. Vineet Kumar and Ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8855.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners did not comply with the Guidelines applicable to such medical examination. She submits that the Guidelines for the Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs, as applicable to the Central Armed Police Forces, makes it obligatory for the Medical Board to have the candidate admitted in a hospital, and other tests are also to be carried out to confirm the findings of such readings, before

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 732/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 18:21:30

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

giving their final opinion. She places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Mukeem Khan & Anr. , 2025 SCC online Del 379, in support of her submissions. She submits that no such clinical investigation of the respondent was conducted in the present case before declaring him unfit for appointment.

¶25

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. 6. In the present case, the respondent contends that at the stage of the DME, the blood pressure reading of the respondent was taken only once. The respondent challenged this finding before the RME. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the RME, directed the respondent to be admitted to a hospital and his blood pressure reading to be taken three times a day for three days. The record, however, indicates that the said direction was not followed in the present case. Be that as it may, the medical guidelines applicable to the CAPFs require as under:-

¶26

“e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalised by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X -ray and electro-cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc, tests should also be carried out.”

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 732/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 18:21:30

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Apart from recording the blood pressure, the petitioners were also obliged to carry out certain medical examinations in the form of X-ray, Electro-Cardiographic Examinations of Heart and Blood Examinations like Cholesterol/Lipid Profile, etc., to support their readings and the findings of the candidates suffering from hypertension. Admittedly, these tests were also not carried out. In similar facts, this Court in Mukeem Khan (supra), had dismissed the petition against the order of the learned Tribunal which had directed the re-medical examination of the respondent.

¶31

In Vineet Kumar (supra), the respondent therein had also been subjected to a blood examination and his lipid profile was also found to be above normal. Therefore, in view of those facts, the petitioners therein were held to have complied with the Guidelines, and the direction issued by the learned Tribunal was set aside. The said judgment, therefore, would not come to the aid of the petitioners.

¶32

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶33

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶34

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶35

MAY 19, 2025/ VS

¶36

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 732/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 18:21:30

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Staff Selection Commission (Hdqr) & Anr. v. Pratap Kalera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Staff Selection Commission (Hdqr) & Anr. v. Pratap Kalera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bharat Anand Vs Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Parvesh Gautam & Anr.

Mohd. Nasir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Mahesh Chandra Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Frisco Global Private Limited Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

M/S Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through Its Chairman & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Y.P.Spices P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade Taxes & Anr.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Parvesh Gautam & Anr.

National Seeds Corporation Limited through Its Agm (Legal) Vs Pankaj Kumar Prasad

Mohd. Yaseen Vs Nawal Kishore Soni

Anju Gupta Vs Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Reeta Thakur

The Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital Vs Anuj Singh Chaprana and Ors.