STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. vs MS VEERTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2208/2025, CM APPL. 10386/2025 & CM APPL. 10387/2025 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Mr. Vikrant Goyal, Ms. Shweta Shandilya and Mr. Saksham Sethi, Advocates versus MS VEERTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 20.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe) in the Delhi Police. Consequent to clearing the preliminary selection, the respondent was subjected to a Detailed Medical Examination1. The DME report was as under : “19. i) Fit N.A. ii) Unfit on account of (i) Defective Distant Vision 6/18, 6/18 (ii) Defective near Vision 6/18, 6/18 iii) Temp. Unfit on account of N.A.” 1 “DME”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2208/2025 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 2. Thus, the DME report recorded that the respondent was unfit for recruitment as Constable on account of defective distant vision and defective near vision. 3. It appears that thereafter, the matter was referred to an ophthalmologist, following which a Review Medical Board considered the respondent and found him unfit. The relevant entries from the Review Medical Examination2 report dated 27 January 2024, reads thus : “2. Finding of the Review Medical Examination Board : Ophthalmology opinion taken – enclosed R 6/9 L 6/9, unfit R Cotton fibre within cornea Underwent previous refractive surgery 3. Final opinion (a) FIT/Unfit : UNFIT (b) if unfit, reason thereof Previous refractive surgery.” 4. There is, therefore, some degree of dissonance between the DME and the RME reports. While the RM