Waraich v. Maneesh Kumar

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in O. A. No. 3327/2024, titled Maneesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government hospital except the hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination. Appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination be passed thereafter under intimation to the applicant.

8. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the applicant is being declared medically fit, subject to his meeting other criteria, he shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis. No costs.”

2. To give a brief background of the present case, the respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) in the Delhi Police Examination, 2023, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 01.09.2023. He was provisionally selected, subject to medical fitness. However, he was declared medically ‘unfit’ for appointment by the Detailed Medical Examination Board vide its report dated 19.01.2024, with the following observation: “Gunstock Deformity Left Upper Limb”

3. Importantly, the Detailed Medical Examination Board consisted of a Specialist Orthopaedic.

4. The respondent, being aggrieved by the said declaration of unfitness, applied for a Review Medical Examination Board.

5. The Review Medical Examination Board, which did not consist of an Orthopaedic, again declared the respondent medically ‘unfit’ for appointment vide its report dated 20.01.2024, with the following remark: “Obliteration of carrying angle in Left Upper Limb - Gunstock Deformity”

6. Aggrieved by the above report, the respondent got himself examined at a Government Hospital. Armed with the said reports, the respondent filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal, which, as noted hereinabove, has been disposed of with the directions reproduced above.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as there is consistency between the reports of the Detailed Medical Examination Board and the Review Medical Examination Board, the learned Tribunal erred in directing a re-medical examination of the respondent.

8. We are unable to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that, apart from the fact that the Review Medical Examination Board did not consist of a Specialist Orthopaedic, the necessary clinical examination in the form of an X-Ray, as required in terms of Paragraph 7 (i) of the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles For GOs & NGOs dated 31.05.2021, was not conducted on the respondent. The reports also do not mention the angle of the limb, which would indicate whether the respondent was suffering from Gunstock Deformity, as alleged.

10. Given the above facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the direction of the learned Tribunal in the present case.

11. The petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly, dismissed.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.