SACHIN KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: April 26, 2024

CM APPL. 24446/2024 & REVIEW PET. 184/2024
IN
+ W.P.(C) 1762/2024
(2) SACHIN KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs.

versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Sr. PC with Ms. Geetanjali Tyagi, GP and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for UOI

CM APPL. 24447/2024 & REVIEW PET. 185/2024
IN
+ W.P.(C) 1789/2024
(3) DNYANESHWAR DEVARSHE ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs.

versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Ayshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Sr. P.C. with Ms. Geetanjali Tyagi, GP and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for UOI
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 24446/2024 in REVIEW PET. 184/2024
CM APPL. 24447/2024 in REVIEW PET. 185/2024
These applications have been filed by the review petitioners / respondents seeking condonation of 41 days delay in filing the review petitions.
For the reasons stated in the applications, same are allowed. Review petitions are taken on record.
Applications stand disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 184/2024
REVIEW PET. 185/2024
1. These review petitions have been filed by the review petitioners / respondents seeking review of the order dated February 7, 2024, whereby this Court had disposed of writ petitions by stating in paragraph 6 as under:
“6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions by directing the respondents to get examine the right forearm of the petitioners through a newly constituted Medical Board in accordance with Guidelines specifically, Clause 3 of the Guidelines, under the heading ‘Hand and fingers’, issued by the respondents and decide whether the petitioners are fit for appointment. It is directed that the examination by the Board shall be undertaken within a period of three weeks from today as an outer limit. The respondents are also directed to convey the outcome of the fresh Medical Board to the petitioners. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are found fit, further action shall be taken in accordance with law.”

2. It is the case of Mr. Farman Ali and Ms. Ayshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents / review petitioners, that the review petitions have been filed on the ground that this Court has not taken into account the MHA instructions dated August 24, 2005 which allows for the constitution of only one Review Medical Board (“RME”, for short) and also paragraph 13.6.3 of the advertisement dated January 4, 2023, which clearly states, RME of the candidates will be conducted in continuation of the Detailed Medical Examination (“DME”, for short), preferably on the subsequent date of DME and the petitioners being aware of the position stipulated in the aforementioned advertisement willingly participated in the recruitment process.
3. It is their submission that the petitioners upon being declared unfit in the recruitment process preferred W.P.(C) 1762/2024 and W.P.(C) 1789/2024 challenging the rejection letters inter alia contending that the RME should have been convened after a one-month interval.
4. They submit that that in terms of the instructions dated August 24, 2005 for recruitment in Central Armed Police Forces (“CAPF”, for short) only one Review Medical Board is provided as a policy matter. In other words, there is no provision for conducting third medical examination, once a candidate has been declared unfit in the DME and RME.
5. It is also their submission that the guidelines for ‘tattoo’ have already been clarified by the respondents in terms of paragraph 11 (3) (d) of the ‘Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination’ in ‘CAPFs & AR’ dated July 16, 2018. It is provided that if a candidate has undergone removal of ‘tattoo’ prior to appearing for the recruitment process and the ‘tattoo’ has faded substantially, he/she will be permitted to undergo the entire selection process with the approval of presiding officer of the recruitment board and the scar resulting due to removal of ‘tattoo’ will be reviewed by the Medical Board of Officer(s) during DME. Whereas, in the present case, ‘tattoo’ was present on dorsum of (RT) hand of the petitioner. Therefore, the orders dated December 24, 2023 and December 26, 2023 passed by the respondents declaring the petitioners unfit is in accordance with the relevant guidelines.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the review petitioners / respondents, we are of the view that the impugned order as challenged by the respondents does not require any interference for the simple reason that the direction was passed in the facts and circumstances of the given cases, more so, when the petitioners have got the ‘tattoos’ removed and the direction was only for re-examination of the right forearms of the petitioners after the removal of their ‘tattoos’.
7. It may be stated here that by no means, the finding of the Court is to give direction which may be at variance with the relevant guidelines. The direction was given clearly in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly as the cases pertain to ‘tattoos’
8. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The review petitions are dismissed. No Cost.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J
APRIL 26, 2024/jg

W.P.(C) 1762/2024 & W.P.(C) 1789/2024 Page 4