Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order directing the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to constitute a fresh Medical Board to reassess the fitness of a candidate for police recruitment. The High Court emphasized that ignoring the findings of a dermatologist, who declared the respondent fit for duty, was unjustified and necessitated judicial intervention.

This decision stems from a dispute involving the recruitment of the respondent, Aman Singh, to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police. The Review Medical Board (RMB) had disqualified the respondent on medical grounds, leading him to seek relief before the CAT, which ordered a fresh medical examination. SSC challenged this directive before the High Court.

Background:

Aman Singh applied for recruitment as a Constable in the Delhi Police. The initial Detailed Medical Examination (DME) found him unfit due to a medical condition, “Haemorrhoid.” Dissatisfied, the respondent underwent a Review Medical Examination, which also declared him unfit. To contest the decision, he obtained a fitness certificate from a hospital and approached the CAT, arguing that his medical condition was minor and did not impair his ability to perform the duties of a Constable.

The CAT ordered a fresh examination by a Medical Board, prompting SSC to file a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the tribunal’s directive.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

The counsel for the petitioners, Mr Arnav Kumar and Ms Shreeya Sud presented the following arguments:

• Finality of Review Medical Examination (RME):

They argued that after the RME declared the respondent unfit, there was no legal basis for conducting another medical examination.

• Stringent Medical Standards for Police Duties:

The council emphasized the necessity for high medical fitness standards in police recruitment, as the role involves maintaining law and order and ensuring public safety.

• Absence of Mala Fide Allegations:

It was submitted that since the respondent did not allege bias or mala fide intent by the RMB, the CAT’s directive was unwarranted.

• Precedents Favoring Non-Interference:

Citing multiple judgments, including Himanshu Bansal v UOI and Vijender Singh v UOI, the petitioners argued that courts should generally refrain from overruling the findings of medical experts unless there is strong evidence of injustice.

Respondent’s Contentions:

The counsel for the respondent, Ms. Esha Mazumdar and her team, countered with the following points:

• Flaws in the RME Process:

The respondent claimed that the RME was conducted hastily, lacked transparency, and was inconsistent with medical guidelines.

• Expert Dermatologist’s Opinion Ignored:

The RME disregarded the findings of the dermatologist consulted as per recruitment guidelines, who had declared the respondent fit for duty.

• Minor Medical Condition:

The respondent’s counsel argued that the medical issue, a small umbilical defect under 5 mm, was minor, remediable, and did not require surgery. This condition did not impact his ability to perform police duties.

• Supportive Judicial Precedents:

The counsel relied on Dharamvir Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Deepak Yadav v SSC, wherein courts directed fresh medical examinations for candidates disqualified due to minor or remediable medical conditions.

Court’s Findings and Judgment:

• Judicial Review of Medical Board Decisions:

The High Court recognized the principle of judicial restraint in medical decisions but emphasized that courts have the authority to intervene in cases of apparent injustice. Citing Veer Pal Singh v Ministry of Defence, the court noted that expert opinions deserve respect but not unquestioning acceptance, particularly when procedural fairness is compromised.

• Disregard of Dermatologist’s Opinion:

The court highlighted that the dermatologist consulted on the recommendation of the RME, had declared the respondent fit for duty. Ignoring this opinion without providing adequate justification was deemed unjustified.

• Relevance of Minor and Remediable Conditions:

The court agreed with the respondent’s counsel that minor medical conditions, such as the one in question, should not result in disqualification if they do not impede job performance. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Nakul Das and Dharamvir Singh, which emphasized the need to distinguish between permanent and remediable conditions.

• Upholding Tribunal’s Directive:

The court affirmed the CAT’s decision to direct a fresh medical examination. It observed that the re-examination was necessary to ensure procedural fairness and to prevent the respondent from suffering undue prejudice.

The High Court concluded that the SSC should reconstitute a Medical Board, including qualified specialists, to reassess the respondent’s fitness.