Judicial review of medical board decisions requires substantial justification, especially when specialist opinions are disregarded without explanation.

ORDER :

CM APPL. 18062/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 3884/2025 & CM APPL. 18061/2025

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short ‘learned Tribunal’), allowing the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:-

“6. In view of the decision taken by this Tribunal in various OAs, we cannot take a divergent view in the present matter. Accordingly, the OA is also disposed of with a direction to the competent authority/respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government hospital except the hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination. Appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination be passed thereafter under intimation to the applicant.”

3. The learned Tribunal, in allowing the above O.A., has simply relied upon the earlier Orders passed in other O.As by it.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, before being declared medically ‘unfit’ for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) (Male), the Review Medical Examination Board referred the respondent to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini wherein, a detailed examination of the respondent was conducted by the specialist over a period of few days and finally the Doctor found ‘multiple tortuous superficial venous channels in medical aspect of the entire left leg region’. He submits that the Medical Examination Board has, therefore, rightly declared the respondent ‘unfit’ for appointment. He submits that the learned Tribunal, therefore, failed to take note of the specialist opinion obtained by the petitioner.

5. He places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Others v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, which has summarized the law with respect to scope of challenge to the medical examination reports, as under:-

“ 10.38 In our considered opinion, the following principles would apply:

xxx

(iv) The situations in which a Court can legitimately interfere with the final outcome of the examination of the candidate by the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board are limited, but well-defined. Some of these may be enumerated as under:

xxx

(d) Where the Medical Board, be it the DME or the RME or the Appellate Medical Board, itself refers the candidate to a specialist or to another hospital or doctor for opinion, even if the said opinion is not binding, the Medical Board is to provide reasons for disregarding the opinion and holding contrary to it. If, therefore, on the aspect of whether the candidate does, or does not, suffer from a particular ailment, the respondents themselves refer the candidate to another doctor or hospital, and the opinion of the said doctor or hospital is in the candidate's favour, then, if the Medical Board, without providing any reasons for not accepting the verdict of the said doctor or hospital, nonetheless disqualifies the candidate, a case for interference is made out.”

6. Issue notice to the respondent to be served through all permissible modes, returnable on 14^th July, 2025.

7. In the meantime, if not already implemented, there shall be a stay on the enforcement of the Directions passed in the Impugned Order.