Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Mohit Kumar

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1016/2024, titled Mohit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:

SHARAN CHAUDHARY already conducted the initial and the review medical examination.”

2. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) pursuant to the Notice dated 01.09.2023 for the said post. Having cleared the examination, he was subjected to a Detailed medical examination (DME) wherein, by a Report dated 25.01.2024, he was declared ‘unfit’ with the following remarks: “Carrying angle Right-22 degree Left-23 degree DENTAL POINTS-12…”

3. Aggrieved thereby the respondent applied for a Review Medical Examination (RME) Board, which again declared him ‘unfit’ by finding that the carrying angle of the respondent was Right 24° and Left 23°, which was above the permissible relaxation.

4. The respondent challenged the same before the learned Tribunal, and as noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to subject the respondent to a re-medical examination.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consistent view of the DME and RME should not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the Judgments of this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Shahjeb Ali, 2025:DHC:2303-DB, and Union of India & Ors. v. Anjani Bana, 2025:DHC:5569-DB, and submits that as the Medical Board did not include an orthopedic and no clinical test was conducted on the respondent to determine the SHARAN CHAUDHARY carrying angle. He submits that therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed that the respondent to be subjected to another medical examination for the same.

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

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions has confirmed that the Medical Boards did not include any orthopaedic nor any clinical test to determine the carrying angle of the respondent had been conducted by the Medical Boards. The reports were based on visual observations, by the person who had conducted the medical examination of the respondent using the Goniometer. We have already rejected the above submission of the petitioner in our Judgments in Shahjeb Ali (supra) and Anjani Bana (supra) referred hereinabove.

9. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The petition along with the pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 25, 2025/bs/GB/ik SHARAN CHAUDHARY