Sunil Kumar Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Reports of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, ‘DME’) dated 09.12.2024, and the Review Medical Examination (in short, ‘RME’) dated 13.12.2024, by which the petitioner has been declared ‘Unfit’ for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2022 (in short, ‘LDCE-2022’ on the ground of him being found to be suffering from ‘Distal Phalanx Contractive Deformity’.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Clause 9 (VII) (3) (c) of the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG& AR (in short, ‘Medical Guidelines’), submits that deformity of the fingers or hand can be a ground for rejection of a candidature only if it impairs normal functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree so as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties. He submits that in the present case, the Impugned DME and the RME have not formed such an opinion before declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is already working as Constable (‘GD’) with the Central Industrial Security Force, and has been regularly declared to be in ‘SHAPE-1’ category in his Annual Medical Examinations.

3. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Manjit Kumar vs. Union of India, 2023:DHC:8850-DB.

4. Issue notice.

5. Notice is accepted by Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case, the RME, before rendering its Impugned Report, had referred the petitioner to specialist Orthopaedician who had also reported the petitioner to be suffering from ‘Distal Phalanx Contractive Deformity’. He submits that therefore, the petitioner was rightfully declared ‘Unfit’ for appointment.

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

8. With regards to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already working as a Constable (‘GD’) with the CISF, the same, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1583, may not have much bearing so far as the Medical Examination of the petitioner for the LDCE-2022 in question is concerned,

9. Clause VII(3)(c), Chapter 9 of the Medical Guidelines, referred hereinabove, reads as under:

UPPER EXTREMITIES: xxx

3. Hand and fingers. xxx

(c) Scars and deformities of the fingers or hand that impair normal functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties, are disqualifying.”

10. A reading of the above would show that a mere deformity of the fingers or hand would not be a ground to declare a candidate ‘Unfit’ for appointment, unless such deformity impairs the normal functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of the combatised duty of a candidate. In the present case, the Impugned DME and RME reports do not record satisfaction to this condition.

11. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be re-examined by a Medical Board to be constituted by the Army Hospital (R & R). We request the Medical Superintendent, Army Hospital (R & R) to constitute a Medical Board for the same, which must include a Senior Orthopaedician, within a period of three weeks from today.

12. In case the petitioner is found ‘Fit’ for appointment, the further process for his appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) be carried out by the respondents. However, in case the petitioner is found ‘Unfit’ for appointment, his candidature would be deemed to have been rejected.