NISHANT vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 06.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 5441/2024 & CM APPL. 22466/2024 NISHANT .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) The matter is taken up today as 05.02.2025 was declared as a holiday on account of the Delhi Assembly Elections. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the report of the Review Medical Examination dated 15.03.2024, whereby the petitioner has been declared ‘unfit’ for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police and the Central Armed Police Forces Examination-2023 on the ground of being found suffering from ‘Syndactyly’. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of clause XI(2)(viii)(B)(b) of the applicable ‘Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles’ dated May 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Medical Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5441/2024 Page 1 of 5 By:NEELAM Signing Date:17.02.2025 13:37:02 Guidelines’), in case of the presence of deformities of the toes, the Medical Board has to form an opinion on whether such deformities would prevent the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running or jumping of the candidate. She submits that in the present case, the Review Medical Board does not seem to have tested the petitioner on this perimeter. 3. She further submits that, in terms of the Medical Guidelines, the Review Medical Board should have consisted of an Orthopaedic specialist or an opinion of an Orthopaedic specialist from a government hospital should have b