Candidate Entitled to Re-Medical Exam When Medical Reports Differ: CAT Orders Fresh Review in Delhi Police Constable Recruitment Case

CAT Orders Fresh Medical Examination for Delhi Police Constable Applicant Citing Conflicting Vision Reports

New Delhi, [Date of Article Creation] – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed authorities to conduct a fresh medical examination for an applicant who was denied the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police due to alleged low vision acuity. The order came after the Tribunal noted discrepancies between the initial medical report declaring the applicant unfit and a subsequent report from a government hospital stating he had normal vision.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar (Member A) and Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta (Member J), issued the directive in response to Original Application (O.A.) No. 1449/2024 filed by Ashish , challenging his rejection from the Delhi Police Constable recruitment process.

Case Background: Discrepancy in Medical Findings

Ashish , who successfully cleared the written and physical tests for the Constable (Executive) position, was deemed medically unfit by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) due to "low visual acuity of distant vision left eye." Contesting this finding, Ashish presented a medical report from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, a government health institution in New Delhi, which declared him fit with 6/6 vision in both eyes.

Applicant's Argument: Right to Fair Assessment

Represented by Advocate Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ashish argued that numerous prior judgments by different benches of the CAT have established a precedent. In cases where conflicting medical reports exist, successful candidates are entitled to a fresh medical re-examination to ensure a fair assessment of their medical fitness. The applicant's counsel cited several similar orders, including O.A. No. 1889/2023 dated 17.07.2023, to support his claim.

Respondents' Stand: Burden on Administration and Rule Adherence

The respondents, represented by Advocate Mr. S.K. Tripathi and Mr. Amit Yadav, vehemently opposed the plea for re-examination. They argued that repeated medical examinations place an undue burden on the administrative machinery. Furthermore, they emphasized that medical standards are strictly governed by notified rules, which were duly followed in Ashish 's case. They contended that the applicant was subjected to the same medical examination process as all other candidates, negating any claims of discrimination.

Tribunal's Observation: Conflicting Reports Warrant Re-examination

Acknowledging the respondents' concerns, the Tribunal, however, firmly stated that the issue of conflicting medical reports in recruitment processes has been consistently addressed in previous O.As. The bench underscored its limitations in medical expertise, stating, "we cannot claim any expertise in determining medical fitness or otherwise nor are we competent and nor should we venture into commenting upon the professional competence of the medical doctors."

Despite this, the Tribunal highlighted the undeniable presence of two contradictory medical reports. In such circumstances, the bench emphasized that Ashish , having successfully navigated the competitive selection process, deserved "a positive and sympathetic consideration by way of an opportunity of appearing before a medical board once again."

The Tribunal drew a clear parallel to a similar case, O.A. No. 1889/2023, where an applicant for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police was granted a fresh medical examination due to conflicting findings on blood pressure. The court quoted extensively from the order in O.A. No. 1889/2023, reinforcing the principle of providing a fair chance to candidates who have cleared rigorous selection processes.

Order: Fresh Medical Examination Directed

Ultimately, the CAT disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage itself, directing the competent authority to grant Ashish an opportunity for a fresh medical examination. The respondents are instructed to constitute a medical board in a government hospital different from the one where the initial examination was conducted. This process must be completed within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order's certified copy.

In its concluding remarks, the Tribunal reiterated that the order should not be construed as a comment on the merits of the applicant's claim or the professional competence of the doctors who conducted the initial examination. The order focuses solely on resolving the discrepancy between the medical reports by providing a fresh, impartial medical assessment.

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in recruitment processes, particularly when medical fitness is a criterion. It affirms the right of candidates to a re-evaluation when credible conflicting medical opinions arise, ensuring that selection processes are not only competitive but also just and equitable.