$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9^th September, 2024 + W.P.(C) 12561/2024 and CM APPL.52231-52232/2024 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Advocate.

Versus NEHA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu Niket, Mr. Ishan Singh, Ms. Unnimaya S.

and Ms. Chetna, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), New Delhi in O.A. No. 1881/2024.

2. Notice issued.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice. 4. With the consent of parties, the present petition is taken for final disposal.

5. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had preferred O.A. No.1881/2024 before the learned Tribunal, being aggrieved of the Review Medical Examination conducted on 25.01.2024 by the petitioners for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12561/2024 Page 1 of 5 recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination 2023 wherein she was declared ‘unfit’ on account of “Vision - Right-6/12, Left-6/36 and Centralized Vitiligo present over face, both hand, both legs and back, front”.

6. The case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that the said medical ground, on which she was declared ‘unfit’ was neither notified nor there was any finding that it is an impediment for functional performance of the duty as a Constable. She placed reliance upon order dated 10.05.2024 in OA No. 519/2024, titled as Teekaram Singh Meena Vs. SSC & Ors. to submit that her disability cannot be regarded as deformity or any impediment in performing the functions of Constable in Delhi Police.

7. To the contrary, the stand of petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that in a catena of decisions it has already been held that the recruitment in Public Service has to be strictly done in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and Recruitment Rules. The petitioners pleaded that it was incumbent upon the respondent to disclose the medical details about her disease, which she did not at the time of obtaining medical certificate from a Civil Hospital and thus, respondent’s medical fitness was required to be assessed by the Review Medical Board and so, the Department was directed to constitute a Review Medical Board, who declared her unfit for recruitment.

8. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 20.05.2024 allowed the OA filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners to comply the directions as contained in OA No. 519/2024, titled as Teekaram Singh Meena Vs. SSC and Ors. wherein direction was issued to conduct re-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12561/2024 Page 2 of 5 review medical of the candidate to assess the functionality and capability to perform the duties as Constables.

9. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2024, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that the respondent had undergone detailed medical examination not once but twice, which was conducted keeping in mind the parameters contained Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 as amended from time to time. Rule 9 & Rule 14 (C) of the Rules deals with Recruitment of Constables (Male & Female)

Rule 9(v) & 14(3) as amended on 22.10.2018.

10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Medical Board constituted by Ministry of Home Affairs was an independent Medical Board and not by Delhi Police and the opinion rendered by the Medical Board should not be disputed until and unless there are strong medical evidence for the same.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel ap