SSC AND ANR. vs GARIMA
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 915/2025 & CM APPL. 4528/2025
SSC AND ANR. …..Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Mr. Amlaan Kumar and Mr. Vinayak Aren, Advs.
versus
GARIMA …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar and Ms. Unni Maya S., Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
% 07.03.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This is a case in which the respondent, who had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Female in the Delhi Police was disqualified on the ground that she had fractured her left ankle. The Detailed Medical Examination1 and the Review Medical Examination2 reports are consistent in that regard.
2. Against her having been found unfit, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal3 by way of OA 3143/2024. By judgment dated 9 August 2024, the Tribunal has directed the respondent to be subjected to a fresh medical examination.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Staff Selection Commission has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
4. We have heard Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned CGSC for the petitioners and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. Though it is true that there are consistent findings of the left ankle of the respondent having been fractured, we find that, in the DME report, it is only shown us a case of temporary unfitness.
6. Ms. Mazumdar submits that, thereafter, the respondent has been treated and the fracture has healed. Ms. Mazumdar also points out that the ankle fracture was sustained on 18 January 2025, two days before the DME, when, during the course of training, the respondent had to participate in a long jump. Following this unfortunate incident, on 20 January 2024, she was disqualified by the DME.
7. Ms. Mazumdar submits that the respondent was sent to the RME on the very next day, i.e., 21 January 2024, and again disqualified on 24 January 2024. The respondents ankle has, since, in her submission, healed.
8. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
9. We, however, make it clear that the respondent would be bound by the findings of the fresh medical examination.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 7, 2025/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 DME, hereinafter
2 RME, hereinafter
3 the Tribunal, hereinafter
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
W.P.(C) 915/2025 Page 3 of 3