Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC along with Ms. Priya Singh, GP and Ms. Rebina Rai v. BABITA VERMA

Through: Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 24760/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5437/2025 & CM APPL. 24761/2025 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 3484 of 2024 titled ‘Babita Verma v. SSC & Anr.’, allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following direction: “7. In our considered view, the ratio of the aforesaid Order applies to the facts of the present case as well. Accordingly, the OA is also disposed of with a direction to the Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 1 of 5 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 17:59:43 competent authority amongst the respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government hospital except the hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination. Appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination be passed thereafter under intimation to the applicant.

8. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In the event the applicant is being declared medically fit, subject to her meeting other criteria, she shall be given appointment such an forthwith. The applicant, eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis. No costs.”

3. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) Female pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the petitioner on

01.09.2023 for the said post. 4. She was declared medically ‘unfit’ for the appointment by the Detailed Medical Examination (‘DME’) Board vide a report dated

23.01.2024 with the following remark: “ Unfit on account of Little finger deformity middle IP jts.”

5. In Paragraph 14 of the said report, the DME reported an abnormality in the Loco motor system of the respondent as under: “ Little finger (L) Hand fixed flexion of MIP joints.” Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 2 of 5 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 17:59:43

6. Dissatisfied with the above report, the respondent requested for a Review Medical Examination (‘RME’). 7. At the stage of the RME, the RME Board referred the respondent for an opinion of an Orthopaedic Department for any functional deformity. The Radiologist, by its report dated 25.01.2024, reported as under: “ Soft tissue are normal. There is loss of joint space involving PIP joint of right little finger & the same is held in flexion position. Rest of the bones & joints appear normal. No cortical breech/budding. IMP: F/S/O Osteoarthritis changes in PIP joint of right little finger with flexion deformity.”

8. Along with the report are the X-Ray films of the right hand of the respondent. It is important to note here that the Orthopaedic Department had referred for an X-Ray of the Right Hand of the respondent. 9. Based on the above report, the Review Medical Board by its report dated 26.01.2024, declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment with the following remark: “ Flexion Deformity right little finger.”

10. The respondent obtained an opinion from the M.G.M. Medical College and approached the learned Tribunal in form of the above OA, challenging the reports of the medical examination conducted by Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 3 of 5 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 17:59:43 the petitioner 11. As noted hereinabove, the petition has been allowed by the learned Tribunal with the above direction. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the RME, before declaring the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment, had referred her to an Orthopaedic Specialist for an opinion on functional effect of the deformity in the hand. It is based on the opinion of the Orthopaedic Specialist, that she was declared ‘unfit’ for appointment. He submits that this report could not have been interfered with only because of a vague report obtained by the respondent from a Government Hospital. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel or the respondent, who appears on an advance notice of this petition, submits that there were clear contradictions between the report of the DME and the RME; while the DME finds a deformity in the Left Hand of the respondent, the RME finds this deformity in the Right Hand. 14. He submits that in any case, a clear report on the functional effect of the deformity has not been mentioned by the Orthopaedic Department to whom the respondent had been referred by the RME. 15. He submits that given these facts, in terms of the judgement of this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, no fault can be found that the learned Tribunal directing the respondent to be re-examined by a Medical Board. 16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 4 of 5 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 17:59:43 counsels for the parties. 17. In the present case, the respondent had been declared medically ‘unfit’ for appointment by the DME, finding a deformity in her little finger of the Left Hand, while the RME declared her ‘unfit’ for appointment finding a deformity in the right hand. There is, therefore, clear contradiction between the reports of the DME and the RME. Why the respondent was referred for an X-Ray of the Right Hand, is also not becoming evident from the record. 18. Added to above, while the RME specifically referred the respondent to the Orthopaedic Specialist for an opinion on the functional effect of the deformity, the Orthopaedic Specialist gives its opinion on the Right Hand Deformity of the respondent that too is in not very clear terms. 19. Given the above peculiar facts and following the judgement of this Court in Aman Singh (supra), we therefore, find no fault in the direction issued by the respondent. 20. The petition along with pending application is, accordingly dismissed. NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 28, 2025/Pr/Mn/Ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5437/2025 Page 5 of 5 Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 17:59:43