Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Mukesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16157 of 2022 & CM Appls. 50470-50471 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for medical fitness declaration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense of petitioner's fitness against findings. (Para 5) |
| 3. procedure for independent medical examination agreed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. petition disposal based on medical outcome. (Para 9) |
CM APPL. 50471/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16157/2022
3. The petitioner, vide the present petition has prayed as under:
"a) directing the respondents to declare the petitioner medically fit for the post of constable in the CAPF in the said recruitment notification dated 17.7.2021 by declaring it's decision dated 29.9.2022 as arbitrary and unsustainable and include the petition in the selected list of candidates and to issue appointment letter accordingly; AND
b) Direct the Respondents not to issue any appointment letters or allow joining the selected candidates until the name of the petitioner is added in the selection list while pendency of the present petition."
4. The case of the respondent is that vide the detailed medical examination dated 27.09.2022, the petitioner was found unfit and was referred to the Review Medical Board for B/L Cervical Ribs. Thereafter, he appeared before the Review Medical Board on 29.09.2022 and the said Board also found him unfit on two grounds:
"(i) Bilateral Cervical Rib present; and
(ii) Over weight by 8 Kgs (BMI- 27.68%)."
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is otherwise fit, however, his medical condition was not properly considered during the review medical examination by the Review Medical Board.
6. Without commenting on the merit of the present case, it is agreed by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be examined by an independent Hospital i.e. by the R&R Hospital and the report of that hospital shall be final and binding upon the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, we hereby, direct the In-charge of R.R Hospital to constitute a board, within three weeks, to examine the petitioner and send a report to the respondents within a week thereafter.
8. It is made clear that if the report is in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process in question. However, if the report is against the petitioner, that will be binding upon both the parties and as agreed by the petitioner, the said report shall not be challenged.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is accordingly disposed of.
Judicial review of medical fitness in recruitment must ensure fairness, allowing for independent assessment to determine eligibility.
A court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with medical opinions rendered by competent authorities unless there is a gross error or illegality in their assessment.
Judicial review of medical fitness decisions requires deference to specialized medical assessments; courts cannot intervene without proper procedural adherence.
The court affirmed the necessity of fair re-evaluation in recruitment processes when discrepancies in medical fitness findings arise.
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.
The court affirmed the right to a fair assessment in recruitment processes, directing a further medical examination due to inconsistencies in initial evaluations.
When medical boards reject candidates based on conditions not clearly disqualifying under guidelines, and where conflicting medical opinions exist, the board must provide specific findings justifying....
The court cannot substitute its view for medical determinations made by competent boards, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance for reconsideration.
The court ruled that once the petitioner was declared fit for recruitment, he should be considered for appointment to the post of Constable (GD).
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
