Vishnu vs. Staff Selection Commission

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28294/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-02-2022 in WP(C) No. 14451/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

VISHNU Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 150013/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 199863/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 5231/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 199862/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 169098/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 97494/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 31-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL

• For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Autar Singh Sengar, Adv. Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG along with Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was aspiring for recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. But his candidature was rejected on medical ground by finding him to be unfit of account of active ulcer, over thigh area. The said negative report (dated 08.11.2021) was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition before the High Court. However, the High Court refused to grant any relief to the candidate and accordingly the writ petition came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2022.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would advert to the guideline dated 31.05.2021 to contend that the review medical examination was not conducted in the manner suggested by the guidelines.

4. We have read the relevant Clauses in the guideline although this was not argued before the High Court.

5. Having considered the arguments and the fact that there was a basis for declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit on the given date, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

2