Mr. Vikrant Goyal; Ms. Shweta Shandilya; Mr. Saksham Sethi v. MS VEERTA

1. The respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe) in the Delhi Police. Consequent to clearing the preliminary selection, the respondent was subjected to a Detailed Medical Examination[1]. The DME report was as under: “19. i) Fit N.A. ii) Unfit on account of (i) Defective Distant Vision 6/18,

(ii) Defective near Vision 6/18, 6/18

2. Thus, the DME report recorded that the respondent was unfit for recruitment as Constable on account of defective distant vision and defective near vision.

3. It appears that thereafter, the matter was referred to an ophthalmologist, following which a Review Medical Board considered the respondent and found him unfit. The relevant entries from the Review Medical Examination[2] report dated 27 January 2024, reads thus:

4. There is, therefore, some degree of dissonance between the DME and the RME reports. While the RME report states that the respondent was found to have a cotton fibre within his cornea and was found to be suffering from vision deformity only to the extent of 6/9 in both eyes, the DME report makes no reference to any cotton fibre within the respondent’s cornea and records the vision of the respondent as 6/18 in both eyes.

5. Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that vision of 6/9 in both eyes falls within the acceptable standards for recruitment to the post of Constable, as per the “RME”, hereinafter petitioner’s own guidelines.

6. We are not entering into that aspect. As this is a case in which the DME and the RME reports are not alike, applying the principle laid down by us in Staff Selection Commission v Aman Singh[3], the decision of the Tribunal to refer the matter to a fresh medical examination is unexceptionable. Without, therefore, expressing any opinion on the fitness of the respondent for recruitment to the post of Constable, we uphold the judgment of the Tribunal.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.