Tracking Legal Developments.

High Court Can Order Independent Medical Assessment to Uphold Right to Employment: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has reinforced the judiciary's power to intervene when administrative recruitment processes rely on potentially flawed medical evaluations. In a significant judgment, the Court set aside the medical rejection of a candidate for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), emphasizing that the right to employment is a protected constitutional interest under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

A Disputed Diagnosis in Recruitment

The case involved Tuhin Das, a petitioner seeking a position as a Constable (GD) in the CAPFs and Assam Rifles. During the recruitment process, Das was declared "medically unfit" due to a "carrying angle" in his arm that deviated from the prescribed 10–15 degree range. Despite providing an external X-ray report from a government-empanelled hospital that indicated a normal range of 15 degrees, the recruitment board persisted in its rejection.

Finding his professional future in jeopardy, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court. The Court, presided over by Justice Aniruddha Roy, moved to address the discrepancy between the recruitment board’s findings and the external medical evidence.

Intervention and the Path to Re-Examination

Recognizing the potential for administrative oversight, the Court directed that an independent medical examination be conducted. After multiple procedural hurdles—including a refusal by the Alipore Command Hospital to conduct the test due to "security reasons"—the Court eventually ordered the BSF Hospital in Salt Lake, Kolkata, to form an expert board to measure the petitioner's carrying angle.

The results of this court-mandated assessment were definitive: the petitioner was found to be medically fit.

The Court’s Rationale

Justice Aniruddha Roy noted that the judiciary’s role under Article 226 is not merely administrative but equitable. The Court highlighted that the candidate had been diligent, filing his petition before the final merit list was published, thereby avoiding the common pitfall of "delay and laches."

Crucially, the Court asserted its authority to "mould the relief" to ensure that justice is not just a theoretical concept but a tangible outcome for the citizen. Because the petitioner’s exclusion was based on a flawed medical finding, the Court held that his fundamental rights had been infringed without due process.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the duty of Constitutional Courts to safeguard the rights of aspirants. As Justice Roy observed:

> "Right of employment is the constitutional right of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The right to livelihood and to live with dignity is also recognized by the Constitution of India under Article 21."

He further articulated the scope of judicial intervention:

> "The plenary power and authority of this constitutional court under Article 226 is extremely wide in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs, but the wide expressions being used under Article 226 to enable this constitutional court to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the reliefs to meet the requirement of the situation."

The Verdict and Future Implications

The Court quashed the rejection order dated November 1, 2024, and ordered the respondent authorities to accommodate the petitioner in the 2024 recruitment process, even if it requires the creation of an additional supernumerary post.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to recruitment boards that medical criteria must be applied with accuracy and transparency. By prioritizing an independent clinical assessment over standard board rejections, the Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that constitutional rights to employment cannot be curtailed by administrative errors in medical evaluations. The respondents have been given a two-month window to comply with the directive, ensuring a path forward for the qualified candidate.