W.P.(C) 11285/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010362762026 + W.P.(C) 11285/2026 & CM APPL. 52199/2026 KUNIKA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Kumar, Ms. Maheshwari Nalini Narayan, Mr. Ishan Baranwal and Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advocates and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, G.P. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. The Petitioner appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2025, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and secured All India Rank 342. She had applied as a person with benchmark disability under the “blindness and low vision” category. Following the personality test, she This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:31:18 W.P.(C) 11285/2026 Page 2 of 5 underwent medical examination at Safdarjung Hospital on 10th February, 2026, and thereafter at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 11th February, 2026. The medical assessment ultimately reflected her as “unfit under PwBD Category (VI 10%)”. 2. Aggrieved by the assessment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Disability Medical Board1. Pursuant to a notice dated 9th April, 2026, she appeared before the ADMB at Army Hospital (Research and Referral). According to the petition, the medical examination was concluded on 8th May, 2026. The Petitioner’s grievance is that, despite completion of the appellate medical examination, neither the outcome thereof nor the medical report and diagnostic details have been furnished to her. The notice dated 9th April, 2026 records that the examination at Army Hospital (Research and Referral) was to constitute the appellate medical examination in connection with the Civil Services Examination, 2025, and that the findings of the ADMB would be final. 3. At the outset, a question arises as to whether the present petition can be entertained by this Court as a court of first instance. Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers jurisdiction upon the Central Administrative Tribunal2 in relation to “recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment” to an All India Service or a civil service of the Union. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India3, the Constitution Bench held that while the power of judicial review of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 remains intact, the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B continue to function as courts of first instance in the fields entrusted to them. 1 “ADMB” 2 “CAT” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:31:18 W.P.(C) 11285/2026 Page 3 of 5 The Court further held that it would not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. 4. The same principle has recently been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Parikshit Grewal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr4. The Court held that any challenge relating to any stage of the recruitment process, post the issuance of the advertisement, would fall within “recruitment” and “matters concerning recruitment” under Section 14 of the 1985 Act, and that the remedy of the aggrieved candidate would lie before the CAT as the only court of first instance. The circumstance that a particular part of the recruitment exercise is undertaken through another agency does not alter the nature of the dispute. 5. The present case is no different in principle. The medical examination at Army Hospital (Research and Referral) was not an independent medical consultation. It was undertaken by the ADMB as part of the recruitment process for the Civil Services Examination, 2025. The report which the Petitioner seeks is a product of that very process and has a direct bearing on her eligibility and service allocation. The character of the dispute cannot therefore change merely because the immediate relief has been framed as a direction to Army Hospital (Research and Referral) to furnish the report. In substance, the grievance arises from, and remains an integral part of, the recruitment process. 6. During the hearing on 7th August, 2026, however, having regard to the circumstances of the Petitioner, this Court had requested counsel appearing 3 (1997) 3 SCC 261 4 2024:DHC:7692-DB This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:31:18 W.P.(C) 11285/2026 Page 4 of 5 for the Union of India to obtain instructions as to when the pending exercise was likely to conclude. 7. Today, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC for the Union of India states, on instructions, that the matter has been referred to the Director General of Health Services for an opinion in the light of the findings received from Army Hospital (Research and Referral), and that the exercise is expected to conclude within five to ten days. It is further stated that the outcome will be communicated to the Petitioner. The statement is taken on record. The Respondents shall accordingly ensure that the final outcome is communicated to the Petitioner forthwith upon its receipt and, in any event, within ten days from today. 8. Mr. Balendu Shekhar further assures the Court that, until the aforesaid exercise is completed and its outcome communicated to the Petitioner, an appropriate vacancy corresponding to the service which may fall to the Petitioner upon allocation, having regard to her rank, category and preferences, will be kept available. The statement is taken on record, and the Respondents shall remain bound by it. 9. In these circumstances, this Court does not propose to entertain the dispute as a court of first instance. If the Petitioner remains aggrieved upon communication of the outcome, whether in relation to the medical determination, the records forming part of that determination, or its consequences for her candidature or service allocation, it will be open to her to pursue the remedies available before the CAT in accordance with law. 10. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the medical assessment or on the Petitioner’s entitlement to be treated as a candidate with benchmark disability. Any proceedings instituted before the CAT shall This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:31:18 W.P.(C) 11285/2026 Page 5 of 5 be considered on their own merits, uninfluenced by the present order. 11. The writ petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 11, 2026 as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:31:18