Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalra, Ms. Venni Kakkar v. Sachin

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 08.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.A. NO. 1991/2024, titled Sachin vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions: NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

2. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent applied for the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 01.09.2023, issued by the petitioners herein.

3. The respondent was declared medically ‘unfit’ for appointment by the Detailed Medical Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘DME’) vide a report dated 23.01.2024, with the following remark: “Unfit on account of:- LT Testicular Varicocele.”

4. Aggrieved of the above report, the respondent applied for Review Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘RME’).

5. The Review Medical Examination Board referred the respondent to the Composite Hospital, CRPF Jharoda Kalan, for an opinion from a Surgeon and Radiologist. Both reports confirmed the findings of the DME, opining that that the respondent was suffering from “Grade 4 left varicocele”.

6. Based on the said reports, the RME vide its report dated 29.01.2024, declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment.

7. The respondent claims that he thereafter underwent a surgical procedure on 30.01.2024, and was fit for appointment. He also placed on record his Ex-servicemen records which declared him to be in ‘Shape-1’ medical category. He therefore, filed the above mentioned OA before the learned Tribunal.

8. The learned Tribunal, taking note of the fact that in other cases the petitioners had been directed to have a Review Medical Examination of the respondents conducted, passed the above quoted directions.

9. At the outset, we must note that the learned Tribunal should not simply keep following its earlier orders which were passed in the peculiar facts of those cases. It must consider the case of each applicant on its own merits.

10. Returning back to the facts of the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in terms of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, the condition of Varicocele is a specified condition on which the candidate shall be declared ‘unfit’ for appointment. He further submits that merely because the respondent had later undergone a surgical intervention, would not in any manner, place a doubt on the report of the DME or the RME, which had declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, as far as the reliance on the Rules is concerned, the same was interpreted by this Court in its Judgement in Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Annu 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2075, wherein this Court held that apart from the mere presence of the conditions stipulated in the Rules, the Medical Officer also has to opine whether due to such condition the candidate would be ‘unfit’ for duties of the particular branch of service in which he is desirous of being enrolled. She submits that, in the present case, neither the DME nor the RME have given any opinion on this aspect. She further submits that Varicocele by itself may require a minor surgical intervention, and for various other candidates when referred to the specialist in this regard, they were advised to undergo such procedure. Without waiting for the same, the RME in those cases also declared the candidates ‘unfit’ for appointment based on the above Rule now being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, however, held the same to be unjustified and upheld the learned Tribunals decision directing a Review Medical Examination. In support, she places reliance on the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 13717/2024 titled Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Vatan Singh, which was a part of batch of petitions disposed of by this Court in Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine 7600.

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

13. As far as the reliance of the petitioners on the Rules is concerned, this Court in Annu (supra) has held that in addition to the presence of the medical condition mentioned therein, the Medical Board must also opine on whether such condition of the candidate is likely to render him ‘unfit’ for duties of the particular branch of service in which he is desirous of being enrolled.

14. In the present case, as the respondent had applied for being appointed in the Executive Branch of the Delhi Police, whether the condition suffered by him is likely to interfere with performance of his duties in that Branch, must be opined by the expert doctors. This Court is not competent for the same. In the present case, however, neither the DME nor the RME have opined on this aspect. We must also take note of the fact that though the respondent was referred to a specialist at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, even the specialist did not provided any opinion on the same.