JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. All the aforesaid writ petitions arise out of substantially identical factual matrix, involving common questions for consideration, similar grievance and an identical cause of action, hence, all the writ petitions were analogously heard together. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, the present batch of writ petitions is being decided by this common judgment, treating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14897/2021 (Saurabh Singh Sanket vs. The Union of India & Others) as the lead case and the facts pleaded therein are being taken as the representative facts for adjudication of the issues involved.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Staff Selection Commission issued a notification for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019, pursuant to which the petitioner, being fully eligible, applied online. The selection process comprised multiple stages including Paper-I, Physical Standard Test (PST)/Physical Endurance Test (PET), Paper-II and Detailed Medical Examination (DME), all of which were mandatory. The petitioner successfully cleared the written examinations as well as the physical tests and was consequently shortlisted for the Detailed Medical Examination. It is further averred that as per the applicable procedure, a candidate declared unfit in DME is entitled to prefer an appeal for Review Medical Examination (RME) before a Review Medical Board in terms of Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioners in all the petitions that upon undergoing DME, they were declared medically unfit on account of different and multiple deficiencies. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners exercised their right to appeal and underwent Review Medical Examination at GC-I, CRPF, Ajmer, wherein also the petitioners were again held medical unfit by showing different reasons than the reasons shown during DME. As a consequence of being declared medically unfit in both examinations, the petitioners became ineligible for further consideration in the recruitment process, despite having cleared all earlier stages.

4. The reasons assigned for declaring the respective petitioners medically unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) as well as in the Review Medical Examination (RME) vary from case to case and have been specifically indicated in the records. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the same are being compiled and set out in detail in the following tabular statement:

5. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14897/2021 has further pleaded that subsequent to his rejection, he got himself medically examined at Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, which is a reputed Government Medical Hospital, where, upon examination by a specialist in the Department of Ophthalmology, it was opined that the petitioner did not suffer from squint and was medically fit for the post in question. The petitioner has also relied upon opinions of other specialists, who similarly found no evidence of squint. It is contended that despite such contrary medical opinions, the respondents proceeded to declare the result and scheduled document verification, thereby excluding the petitioner from further participation. Similar contentions have been raised by the petitioners in other connected writ petitions.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the memorandum of unfitness issued in DME and the result of RME. Learned Counsels for the petitioners argued that action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the medical evidence. It is asserted that there exists a clear variance between the findings of the respondents’ medical boards and those of independent government specialists and that no detailed clinical findings or confirmatory diagnostic reports were supplied to substantiate the conclusion of unfitness.

7. In repl