IMPORTANT POINT
The court's limited grounds for judicial intervention in administrative decisions and the importance of relevant considerations in such decisions.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral)

1. On 20.07.2020, the respondent no.2 issued an advertisement notice for Paramedical Staff Exam 2020, under which the petitioner applied for the position of Head Constable Junior X-ray Assistant under Other Backward Classes category.

2. Subsequently, on 19.12.2020, the petitioner first cleared Physical Standard Test/Skill Test and Trade Test and then on 02.06.2023 completed a computer-based test as well. Advancing in the recruitment process, on 22.02.2024, the petitioner, after clearing the Skill Test/DV/Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination [Hereinafter referred to as `RME'], was shortlisted for medical examination. However, on 28.02.2024, the respondents declared him `Unfit' solely due to his having `Hypospadias'.

3. Hence, the petitioner, vide the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the impugned medical report dated 28.02.2024 and direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Head Constable Junior X-ray Assistant as also to give him all consequential benefits upon such appointment including seniority, arrears of pay and allowances, future promotion etc.

4. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, even after being declared `Unfit' by the respondents on 28.02.2024, the petitioner consulted the Associate Professor, Urology of Safdarjung Hospital on 05.03.2024 who has affirmed that `Hypospadias' will not impede the ability of the petitioner to fulfil the duties associated with the position and did not necessitate active surgery. He further highlights that the nature of the job of Head Constable Junior X-ray Assistant primarily involves radiology work, such as X-ray, MRI, and CT scans, for which the petitioner has demonstrated proficiency by passing the skill test.

5. He lastly submits that the respondents decision to declare the petitioner `Unfit' without conducting a proper examination, despite evidence suggesting his capability and good health appears unjust and he deserves a fair consideration and a reassessment of his eligibility for the position based on his qualifications and abilities rather than his medical condition.

6. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, appearing on advanced notice, submits that the RME was conducted by a Medical Board constituted by the respondents comprising of specialised experts in their fields who have the final verdict for determining the standard of recruitment of any candidate like the petitioner herein. Based thereon, he submits that in matters involving adjudication of medical condition of any candidate like the petitioner for recruitment, there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and also gone through the documents on record.

8. Present is a case wherein the petitioner was declared medically `Unfit' in the RME on 28.02.2024 due to his having Hypospadias'. Therefore, since the issue involved before us rests on the terms and conditions contained in the `Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles' [Hereinafter referred to as `Guidelines'.] and which is the guiding force with the determining factors qua recruitment of any candidate like the petitioner, the relevant portion thereof are reproduced hereunder :-

"XIII. Examination of Inguinal Region and Genitals:

3 (c) Penis: Penis should be examined for any wart, ulcer, discoloration discharge or tumour and these cases are to be rejected. The cases of hypospadias and epispadias or meatal stenosis should also be rejected. The individual is asked to retract the prepural skin and if failed, such cases of phimosis should be rejected."

(emphasis supplied)"

9. Since, neither the steps of appointment in constituting of the RME as taken by the respondents nor the process of declaring the petitioner `Unfit' on the basis of the aforesaid Guidelines are faulty or can be doubted, there is no occasion