Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Atul Baghel on 20 January, 2025

Delhi High Court

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Atul Baghel on 20 January, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~14
                  *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +         W.P.(C) 379/2025, CM APPL. 1809/2025 & 1810/2025
                            STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
                            & ORS.                              .....Petitioners
                                          Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv.

                                                  versus

                            ATUL BAGHEL                                 .....Respondent
                                                  Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv. with
                                                  Ms. Unnimaya S, Advs.

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                                 O R D E R (ORAL)

                  %                                 20.01.2025

                  C. HARI SHANKAR, J.


                  CM APPL. 1810/2025 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 379/2025, CM APPL. 1809/2025

3. The order under challenge in this petition reads as under:

“Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised
in this OA stands concluded by the decision of this Tribunal in OA
No. 597/2024 titled as Deepak Yadav v Staff Selection
Commission & Ors. decided on 22.04.2024.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 379/2025 Page 1 of 3
KUMAR
Signing Date:22.01.2025
19:30:59

2. For parity of reasons, we allow the present OA in terms of
the directions given in the aforesaid OA. However, for the sake of
the convenience, the directions given by the Tribunal in Deepak
Yadav (supra) case are reproduced below:-

“In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA(s) by
directing the respondents to get the applicant(s) re-medical
examination done by a duly constituted Medical Board which
would include dermatologist who shall opinion in light of
Clause 13.2 as to arrive at a just conclusion whether the
applicant(s) are functionally fit for appointment to post of
Constable in Delhi Police. It is directed that the re-medical
examination shall be undertaken within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further,
the respondents are directed to convey the decision to the
respective applicant(s). In the event, the applicant(s) are found
to be fit, further action shall be taken in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.”

3. In view of the above, this OA is also disposed of in the light
of aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.”

4. At the very outset, we do not see why such an order was even
challenged before this Court. All that the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal has done is to direct the respondent to be
examined by a dermatologist, who would assess the respondent’s
functional fitness for appointment to the post of Constable in the Delhi
Police in the light of Clause 13.2 of the advertisement for recruitment
to the post of Constable (Executive) male and female in the Delhi
Police Examination 2023. Clause 13.2 does not allow an aspirant to
the post of Constable to possess any tattoo on her, or his, right
forearm.

5. There is no justification whatsoever for the petitioners
challenging such an innocuous order. There can be no reservation
whatsoever with the candidate concerned being examined by a
Dermatologist, who would assess whether the candidate does or does
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 379/2025 Page 2 of 3
KUMAR
Signing Date:22.01.2025
19:30:59
not possess a tattoo on the right forearm.

6. Ms. Esha Mazumdar, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 24 July 2024 passed by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Staff Selection Commission v
Deepak Yadav1. In that case, this Court actually physically examined
the candidate concerned and arrived at a conclusion that there was no
visible tattoo on the right forearm of the candidate, as seen through the
naked eye.

7. Instead of following that practice, we deem it appropriate to
direct the Dermatologist, who would examine the respondent in terms
of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, to also keep in mind
the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Deepak
Yadav.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

JANUARY 20, 2025
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 379/2025 Page 3 of 3
KUMAR
Signing Date:22.01.2025
19:30:59