WP (C) 8443/2024 $~139 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8443/2024 JYOTI PANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akash Mohan, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi SPC alongwith Mr. Gokul Sharma GP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 03.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. Consequent to the unfortunate demise of her husband, the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment against the post of Constable / GD (Mahila). She attended pre-selection training in February 2023. Thereafter, however, in her medical examination, which was conducted at the Group Centre Greater Noida on 9 February 2023, she was disqualified on the ground that she had “bilateral foot, brachymetatarsia (4th phalanyx). This finding was reiterated by the Review Medical Board, which had examined the petitioner. On this ground, the petitioner was disqualified from further consideration for appointment as CT/GD in the compassionate appointment quota. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2025 11:36:33 Signature Not Verified WP (C) 8443/2024 2. The petitioner’s case is that the deformity in question is merely an abnormality of the fourth toe on the foot and would not impede her from performing her duties as Constable. 3. Mr. Akash Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the applicable “Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG and AR1”, which admittedly govern the selection. Apropos deformities of the toes, Mr. Akash Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the guidelines stipulate thus : “B. Foot and ankle ***** (b) Presence of deformities of the toes (acquired or congenital, including, but not limited to conditions such as hallux valgus, hallux varus, hallux rigidus, claw toe(s), overriding toe(s), (that prevents the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running, or jumping, are disqualifying.” 4. Mr. Mohan has also drawn our attention to Clause D, which reads thus : “D. General. (a) Presence of deformities, disease, or chronic joint pain of pelvic region, thigh, lower leg, ankle and/ or foot that have interfered with function such a degree as to prevent the individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life, or that would interfere with walking, running weight bearing, or the satisfactory completion of training or combatised duty, are 1 “the Guidelines”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2025 11:36:33 Signature Not Verified WP (C) 8443/2024 disqualifying. (b) Presence of leg-length discrepancy resulting in a limp is disqualifying.” 5. It is apparent from the reading of the aforesaid Guidelines that presence of toe deformities is not, in every case, a disqualification for recruitment to the post of Constable. The Medical Boards would also have to opine on whether the deformity is such as would prevent proper wearing of combatized footwear or impair walking, marching, running or jumping and also take into consideration, the stipulations contained in Clause D of the Guidelines reproduced supra. 6. As the Medical Boards, which have examined the petitioner in the present case, have not opined regarding the functional limitations, if any, which the petitioner would suffer, as a consequence of the brachymetatarsia, we deem it appropriate to set aside the decision to disqualify her from the post of Constable, as returned by the Medical Board and the RMB. 7. We, accordingly, do so. 8. The petitioner shall be re-examined by a Medical Board, to be constituted by the Army Research and Referral Hospital on 13 December 2025 at 11 am. The petitioner would present herself at the office of the Medical Superintendent, Army Research and Referral Hospital, who would direct her for examination by a competent doctor. In case the condition is one that requires the opinion of a specialist, a specialist would examine the petitioner in that regard. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2025 11:36:33 Signature Not Verified WP (C) 8443/2024 9. Mr. Akash Mohan agrees, on behalf of his client, that his client would remain bound by the decision of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, whichever way it goes. 10. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion, positive or negative, regarding the petitioner’s entitlement or eligibility for being recruited as Constable/GD. We, however, reiterate that the decision must be taken strictly keeping the provisions of the aforesaid Guidelines in mind and taking all factors into consideration. 11. We also make it clear that consequent to the decision of the Board constituted by the Army Research and Referral Hospital, the petitioner would be provided not only with the final decision but also all connected medical papers. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no orders as to costs. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 3, 2025/yg Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2025 11:36:33