Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Manjeet Singh Ahlawat - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 17412 of 2022 and CM. Appl. 55422 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's medical fitness assessment details. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner challenges medical board's opinion. (Para 4) |
| 3. specialist board examination ordered with binding report. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. petition disposed based on medical report outcomes. (Para 8) |
CM APPLs.55423/2022 and 55424/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 17412/2022
3. The petitioner appeared for the post of Constable GD in CAPF, NIA, SSF and Riflemen GD in Assam Rifles Examination 2021 and was found unfit by Detailed Medical Examination conducted on 20.09.2022 and in review medical examination conducted on 23.09.2022.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Board is contradictory and moreover there was no specialist in the said Board. He further submits that let a specialist Board be constituted and the report of the said Board shall be final and binding upon the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, without commenting on the opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Board, we hereby direct the In-charge of R&R Hospital to constitute a Board of specialist and examine the petitioner within four weeks from today.
6. It is agreed by the petitioner that the report of the R&R Hospital shall be final and binding and it will not be challenged further.
7. We hereby make it clear that in the report of R&R Hospital, if the petitioner is found to be fit, the petitioner shall be allowed to join in the selection process. However, if the report is negative then that will be final and binding upon the parties.
8. 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.
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 absence of clear guidelines indicating the refusal of a person to be examined by an Appeal Medical Board after being declared medically unfit by a specialist in a Review Medical Board.
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 affirmed the necessity of fair re-evaluation in recruitment processes when discrepancies in medical fitness findings arise.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review specialized medical opinions regarding fitness for recruitment and encourages petitioners to seek reconsideration through proper channels.
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
