Judicial intervention in recruitment medical assessments is restricted; decisions by Medical Boards are upheld unless there's clear evidence of procedural violations or substantive discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Agnivesh (Advocate Roll No.A/A1074/2017), Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranvesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri S.K. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that an advertisement came to be published by the Staff Selection Commission on 04.03.2024 for recruitment through open competitive examination for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). The writ petitioner appeared in Paper-I which was held at Varanasi and the same was computer based exam and the petitioner qualified the same and become eligible for appearing in Physical Standard Test (PST)/Physical Endurance Test (PET) and the writ petitioner appeared in the said examination, clear the same and became eligible to appear in Paper-II and thereafter he appeared in Paper-II and the centre was at 13302- Dewa Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi. The writ petitioner also cleared Paper-II examination and after post declaration of result, the Deputy Director (Central Region) of the Commission issued a letter to the writ petitioner calling for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) intimating the date of Medical Examination. The writ petitioner appeared before the Medical Examination Committee wherein he was declared unfit on the ground that he is having 'Gynecomastia' The writ petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal for Review Medical Examination which was conducted by the 4th respondent, wherein again he was found unfit on account of 'Gynecomastia.'

3. Questioning the result dated 20.09.2025 issued by respondent No.4 and the result dated 16.09.2025 issued by respondent No.5 and seeking mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to re-conduct the Medical Examination of the petitioner and other medical centre of the group centre, the present writ petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the conclusions so drawn in Detailed Medical Examination (D.M.E.) and Review Medical Examination (R.M.E.) is not accurate and further there happens to be a report of the writ petitioner from Sir Sundar Lal Chikitsalaya, Kashi Hindu Vishwavidalaya (page-58 of the paper book) wherein the said discrepancy/deficiency is not there followed by of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Hospital (page-59 of the paper book).

5. Submission is that once the writ petitioner possesses report from a government hospital and that too a reputed one from B.H.U. then the writ petitioner is right in questioning the conclusions drawn by Detailed Medical Examination (D.M.E.) and Review Medical Examination (R.M.E.). He seeks to rely upon the decision of this Court in Rupesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others , 2020 (9) ADJ 555.

6. Countering the said submission, Sri S.K. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent while countering the submission so made by the learned counsel for writ petitioner has sought to argue that none of the contentions so raised have any leg to establish for simple reason that the case of the writ petitioner stood tested twice one by D.M.E. and second by R.M.E. and further he cannot insist that a report of any other hospital or medical institute should be considered ignoring the conclusions drawn by D.M.E. and R.M.E. He seeks to rely upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appellate judgment in Special Appeal No.1076 of 2024 ( Shivansh Singh Vs. Union of India and 3 others ) decided on 16.12.2024 and a decision of Delhi High Court passed in W.P.