Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1240/2024 Order reserved on 11.12.2025 Order pronounced on 18.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) Ravi Kumar Meena, Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Omprakash Meena, R/o Village Arniya, Post nagaon, Tehsil Gangapur City, & Distt: Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan – 322201.

…Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms. Muskan Sharma)

Versus

1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Northern Region Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi-110001.

3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II Recruitment, Police Headquarters Jai Singh Road New Delhi-110001.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Manupriya Verma Rawat)

O R D E R By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:–

“A. Call for records;

B. Quash and set aside the impugned order/report dated 23/01/2024;

C. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to constitute an independent medical board to medically re-examine the Applicant;

D. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in ST category with all consequential benefits, including arrears, etc.;

E. Award costs of the proceedings; and F. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was duly selected for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male but was arbitrarily declared unfit on the ground of defective colour vision by the Review Medical Board, despite being found fit by Government Hospitals and despite there being no stipulation in the recruitment notification treating defective colour vision as a disqualification.

2.1. Learned counsel argued that the review medical examination was conducted at the same hospital without constituting an independent medical board, in violation of the Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines, and without affording the applicant adequate opportunity or time to effectively challenge the original medical findings, thereby offending the principles of natural justice.

2.2. Learned counsel further contended that the impugned action amounts to changing the rules of the game after the selection process had commenced and is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohamed Ibrahim v. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors., AIR 2023 SC 5123, and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11360–11363 of 2018, to contend that rigid medical thresholds, without reasonable differentiation, create unjust barriers and that the principle of equality mandates recognition of individual functional capability. On these grounds, it was submitted that the present Original Application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned medical report dated 23.01.2024 and consequential reliefs.

2.3. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in SSC & ors. vs. Gaurav Sharavat and anr. (W.P. (C)

No. 1966/2025)

3. Opposing the O.A., learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant was rightly declared medically unfit on account of defective colour vision in both the DME and RME conducted by duly constituted and competent medical boards, in strict accordance with the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and the recruitment notification, which expressly mandate freedom from colour blindness with no relaxation for any category.

3.1. Learned counsel submitted that no procedural irregularity