Back
C. HARI SHANKAR, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION – Appellant
Versus
AMIT GOSWAMI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This is a batch of petitions in which issues analogous to those which came up before this Court in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC Online Del 7600 are involved. All these petitions involve cases in which the concerned respondents sought recruitment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police and were, consequent to a Detailed Medical Examination [“DME” hereinafter] and Review Medical Examination [“RME” hereinafter] found unfit for appointment. The Central Administrative Tribunal [“The Tribunal” hereinafter] whom the respondents petitioned, has followed an earlier order passed by it in Teekam Singh Meena v. SSC, Order dated 10 May 2024 in OA 519/2024 and held, in each case, that the respondent should be subjected to a “Re-Review Medical Examination.” Aggrieved thereby, the Staff Selection Commission and the Union of India have petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. We went into the existing law on this issue in considerable detail and drew up the following guidelines in SSC v. Aman Singh, after considering earlier authorities on the issue:
Judicial review of medical examination decisions in recruitment is limited to procedural adherence and significant discrepancies, with higher fitness standards for disciplined forces.
Judicial intervention in recruitment medical assessments is restricted; decisions by Medical Boards are upheld unless there's clear evidence of procedural violations or substantive discrepancies.
Medical examination by the Medical Board consisting of medical experts under Rule 15(g) cannot be said to be inferior to the physical standard test conducted by a team of non-experts.
The decisions of a Review Medical Board in recruitment processes are final and can only be challenged under exceptional circumstances, such as procedural violations or malafides.
Point of law: No good reason to discard joint opinion by three eye specialists merely because other eye-specialists on civilian side had given a different opinion to effect that there was no defect i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
