The court reaffirmed that medical fitness evaluations for recruitment are primarily within the discretion of designated medical boards, barring demonstrable errors in decision-making processes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment medical examination - The petitioner challenged the finding of unfitness for recruitment due to anal fissures and varicose veins. The Review Medical Board's reliance on external specialists without having expertise led to a conflict in opinions. The court reiterated that medical fitness is a matter of opinion and should be upheld unless findings demonstrate error in the decision-making process. The procedure and grounds for rejection in the Medical Manual were noted along with the necessity to analyze the applicant's health in the context of duties expected of BSF personnel. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Medical fitness evaluation - Acknowledgment that differing opinions exist among medical professionals, the final determination rests with the medical boards of the employer, ensuring that personnel meet operational requirements. The essence of opinion versus merit was discussed through the lens of previous rulings. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was declared unfit by the Review Medical Board citing anal fissures, despite external examinations suggesting fitness. Previous admissions of competency concerns were noted, leading to a new directive for examination by R.R. Hospital. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The court held that differing medical opinions cannot result in judicial interference unless the process reflects clear error or malfeasance, reinforcing the authority of the medical board's determinations pending operational context suitability. (Paras 5-6)

Issues: The court primarily addressed whether the Review Medical Board correctly assessed the petitioner's fitness for duty based on conflicting medical opinions and the appropriateness of the medical guidelines applied. (Paras 2-3)

Ratio Decidendi: The court decreed that medical fitness judgments should abide by the recruitment boards' standards unless a clear procedural error is found, emphasizing employer discretion in medical assessments necessary for operational readiness. (Paras 5-6)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. assessment of medical fitness for recruitment (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention on medical opinion's validity (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's discretion in medical evaluations (Para 6 , 7)
4. dismissal of petition's merit (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. On 1st June 2021, following order was passed in this petition:

"1. On 25th May, 2021, the following order was passed:

"3. This petition was filed, impugning the finding of medical unfitness of the petitioner for recruitment as Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) in the respondents Border Security Force (BSF) (Comn Set-up).

4. The petitioner was found 'unfit' by the Medical Board on two counts i.e. (i) for having anal fissures; and, (ii) for having Varicose Veins in both lower legs.

5. The petitioner, after getting himself examined at Lady Harding Medical College & Hospital and at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi and both of which certified that the petitioner was not suffering from either of the two ailments, applied for Review Medical Board.

6. It is the case of the petitioner, that the Review Medical Board, on examination of the petitioner, though found the petitioner to be not suffering from varicose veins but still declared the petitioner 'unfit' for the reason of having "anal fissures in ANO". It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner, for examination of "anal fissures in ANO", was referred by the Review Medical Board to Sharda Hospital School of Medical Sciences and Research, Greater Noida, for the reason of not having the concerned specialist and though the petitioner does not have any document of the said examination at Sharda Hospital but was informed that the Review Medical Board declared the petitioner 'unfit' for the reason of specialist at Sharda Hospital opining the petitioner to be suffering from "anal fissures in ANO"."

2. Vide order dated 25th May, 2021, we directed the counsel for the respondents Border Security Force (BSF) to produce the records of Review Medical Examination as well as the Medical Manual and also requested the presence of a Doctor of the respondents BSF to answer our doubts, if any.

3. The counsel for the respondents BSF has produced, (i) the document dated 8th January, 2021 of BSF Hospital, referring the petitioner for expert remarks of specialists, to the Sharda Hospital, qua Anal Fissures and Varicose Veins in both lower legs; (ii) the report dated 9th January, 2021 of Sharda Hospital to the effect, "no visible varicose veins" and "asymptomatic fissures at 12 O'clock position in ANO" and also opining that the petitioner "may be considered for BSF posting"; and, (iii) the Medical Manual i.e. Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles as on 20th May, 2015 and which, at internal page 7, under the heading "General Grounds for Rejection", at Serial No.21 states "Anal fistula, haemorrhoids and other anorectal diseases as specified later" and at internal pages 35 and 36 lays down the method of examination for anal warts (Condylomata), Fistula-in-ano, Pilonidal sinus, Prolapse Rectum, Fissure and External Piles and under the heading "Ano Rectal" provides, "1. Evidence of anal fistula is disqualifying; 2. Evidence of anal or rectal polyp, prolapse, stricture, or fecal incontinence is disqualifying; and, 3. Hemorrhoid (internal or external), with evidence of bleeding, disqualifying".

4. Dr. Shambhu Kumar Jha, Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) and general surgeon of the respondents BSF, present in Court, on enquiry states that all kinds of fissures, though not expressly mentioned at Pages 35 and 36 of the Medical Manual aforesaid to be disqualifying, are disqualifying under the category of "other anorectal diseases" as mentioned at page 7 aforesaid. On further enquiry, whether Anal Fissure is the same as the Annul Fistula, he states that the two are different.

5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the