Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Suman Siddh

1. The respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police. He qualified in the Delhi Police Examination, 2023 but was not selected on the ground that he was medically unfit.

2. The Detailed Medical Examination[1] which took place on 24 January 2024, noted thus:

“DME” hereinafter hpy iii) Temp. Unfit on account of (2) BP = 152/90 (4) Psoriatic Lesions all over body (3) P.R = 112 bpm. Category E Signature: Dr. Vasundhara Yadav DC/SMO, 83 BN BSF”

3. The case of the respondent was therefore referred to the Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Examination[2] report of 30 January 2024 read thus: “2) Brief of Review Medical Examination & findings thereof: Urine - WNL, BP – 130/70 mmHg, PR - 87/min O/E - As per dermatological opinion - old scars s/o multiple itchy reddish papules on hands, back. ? Psoriasis or Nummular Dermatitis 3) Final Opinion: ☒ FIT  UNFIT on account of psoriatic lesions all over body. Place: HQ BSF Hospital-II, BICT Camp, Tigri, New Delhi Dated the ______ 2024 (Name & Signature with Stamp)”

4. In accordance with the aforesaid reference, the case of the respondent was referred for dermatological opinion to the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital[3]. We deem it appropriate to provide a screenshot of the opinion of the LNJP Hospital, thus: “RME” hereinafter “LNJP” hereinafter

5. It could be seen that the opinion of LNJP Hospital was also “? Psoriasis/Nummular dermatitis”, meaning that there was no positive finding of psoriasis or dermatitis, and the diagnosis was still at the query stage.

6. The LNJP Hospital deemed it appropriate to refer the respondent for a skin biopsy for histopathological examination.

7. The result of histopathological examination, following skin biopsy of the respondent, was returned on 3 February 2024, and read thus: - “Received skin biopsy included epidermis and dermis. Epidermis shows hyperkeratosis, of parakeratosis type, acanthosis, focally, there is suprapapillary thinning. No microabscess or hypogranulosis identified. Dermis shows mild chronic inflammation.”

8. However, prior to the aforesaid biopsy report being available, the petitioner conducted the RME on 30 January 2024 and disqualified the respondent on the ground that the respondent had psoriatic lesions all over the body.

9. On the basis of the DME and RME Report, the respondent was declared ineligible for recruitment as Constable. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which, by way of the judgement under challenge, has directed the respondent to be referred for a fresh medical examination.

10. The GNCTD assails the judgement.

11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

12. Ms. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for respondent, submits, and we agree, that once the LNJP Hospital, to whom the petitioner had referred the case of the respondent for expert opinion, chose it appropriate to direct skin biopsy of the respondent for histopathological analysis, the petitioner was required to wait for the report of the histopathological analysis of the respondent’s skin before conducting the RME.

13. Though Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that the report of the skin biopsy is also adverse to the respondent, we, quite frankly, do not possess the medical acumen to understand the report.