Recruitment processes require strict adherence to established medical evaluation guidelines, and expert opinion is essential in fitness determinations for service. Adverse decisions without proper expert involvement can be challenged and corrected.

Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment Guidelines - Procedural irregularities in medical examinations - The petitioner, previously declared unfit without adherence to uniform recruitment guidelines for medical examination, contested the decision citing lack of expert evaluation. Court mandated re-examination by a qualified Dental Specialist, emphasizing that the new report would be binding. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Medical Oversight - Importance of expert evaluation in recruitment processes - The failure of the review medical board to include a Dentist in the assessment raised concerns regarding the validity of the findings, and court directed corrective measures. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was declared unfit in a medical examination during the selection process for Sub Inspector, despite previously clearing written tests and having medical reports from a government hospital. The review board's assessment lacked dentoral expertise, which the petitioner argued rendered the declaration invalid.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered a new examination by a Dental Specialist underlining that the assessment must follow appropriate medical standards and protocols.

Issues: The court addressed whether the declaration of unfitness was valid given the procedures followed, particularly the absence of dental expertise during the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity for rigorous adherence to recruitment protocols, emphasizing the role of qualified medical specialists in determining fitness for service.

Result: The petition is disposed of with directions for re-evaluation.

Table of Content
1. delay in filing counter-affidavit condoned. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's request for medical examination and stay on recruitment. (Para 3 , 4)
3. no medical report was prepared; affidavit submitted. (Para 5 , 6)
4. constitution of a new medical board ordered. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court disposed of the petition with finality on medical report. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 33885/2022 (delay)

1. In view of the reasons stated in the present application, the delay of 2 days in filing the counter-affidavit is condoned. Counter-affidavit is taken on record.

2. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8360/2022 & CM APPL. 25175/2022 (stay)

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"a. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to set-aside the decision dated 26.04.2022 of the Respondent No. 1 declaring the Petitioner as Unfit; and/or

b. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in the Documents Verification to be conducted; and/or

c. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to place on record the medical record of the Petitioner; and/or

d. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to medically re-examine the Petitioner within a time bound manner; and/or

e. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stay the process of recruitment until the present petition is disposed;and/or

f. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to reserve seats for the Petitioner in the merit list which may be prepared during the pendency of the present Petition; and/or

g. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to subject the final result which may be declared to the outcome of the present petition;"

4. The petitioner participated in the selection process who cleared the written examination, however, he was declared unfit in the medical examination conducted in April, 2022 for the post of Sub Inspector in various Police Forces under the respondent no.2 which was taken without following the uniform guidelines for recruitment of medical examination for recruitment to CAPF(s) dated 20.05.2015 as amended on 31.05.2021 issued by respondent no.2 without considering the medical report from the government hospital wherein the petitioner was referred by respondent no.1 itself. When the matter was taken up on 26.05.2022, respondents sought time to take instructions, particularly on Medical Report of the Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital & Research, Pune to apprise this Court accordingly. Consequently, this Court directed them to produce the said Medical Report of aforementioned hospital before this Court.

5. On 14.07.2022, the learned counsel for respondents, on instructions from Mr. Rajesh Singh, submitted that BSF is the Nodal Authority and the said force has intimated about the aforesaid order. Responding thereto, the respondents were told that there is no such medical report of petitioner's examination prepared by the said hospital.

6. Accordingly, the Medical Superintendent of the aforementioned hospital was directed to file an affidavit as to why the Medical Report of the examination of the petitioner has not been prepared on 26.04.2022. Pursuant thereto, the said Hospital filed affidavit stating that the petitioner visited on 26.04.2022 as referred by CRPF, Pune. As per the Hospital, the petitioner was directly referred for dental X-ray and the hospital did not give any fitness report to the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on receipt of the X-ray report, the review medical board again declared the petitioner unfit for the post in question.

8. The case of the petitioner is that in review medical board, there was no Dentist and the report was prepared by non expert. The same cannot be taken into consideration and the petitioner was wrongly declared unfit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document