Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8760
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Pratima K. Gupta, Judicial Member, Chhabilendra Roul, Administrative Member
Prabhat Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
OA. No. 683/2024|MA. No. 652/2024|MA No. 653/2024
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Medical Fitness
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review of Medical Boards - Courts/Tribunals not to substitute opinion of medical experts or sit in appeal over their findings absent mala fides or procedural irregularity - However, where review medical board at same hospital within days defeats its purpose and independent government hospital report contradicts, fresh examination warranted to ensure fairness to meritorious candidate - No interference with merits or competence of doctors; limited direction for procedural fairness. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
Candidate participated in recruitment for Constable (Executive) post, cleared examinations, featured in provisional select list, but declared medically unfit due to stammering by Medical Board and Review Medical Board at same hospital within 24 hours. Obtained contrary fitness certificate from another Government Hospital shortly after. Sought quashing of rejection letter and consideration of candidature.
Findings of Court:
OA disposed at admission stage directing fresh medical examination by independent board in different government hospital; candidature decision based thereon within six weeks; notional benefits if fit.
Issues: Validity of medical unfitness declaration when review conducted at same hospital within days producing conflicting result with subsequent independent government hospital opinion; scope for fresh medical examination post-review board.
Ratio Decidendi: Review medical process becomes futile if conducted at same facility shortly after initial examination; conflicting opinions justify fresh independent examination to uphold fairness, following judicial precedent in identical facts.
Result: OA allowed in terms; fresh medical examination directed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Jagdish N.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant provisionally selected but declared unfit due to stammering. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contradictory government hospital report challenges unfitness finding. (Para 4) |
| 3. no provision for re-medical; expert opinion final; rules cannot change post-exam. (Para 5) |
| 4. review board at same hospital defeats purpose; fresh independent exam directed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. fresh medical exam ordered; conditional appointment if fit. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
At the outset, Ms. Neha Bairagee with Mr. Jagdish N., who has appeared on behalf of the SSC, states that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between SSC and Delhi police, the instant OA would be defended by the counsel representing Delhi Police. Accordingly, learned counsel for Respondents No. 3, Mr.Amit Yadav, shall represent Respondent No. 1 and 2 as well.
2. Factual matrix, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant, is that the applicant has participated in the recruitment process initiated by the SSC, for the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2023. After having been successfully cleared the said examination, name of the applicant appeared in the list of provisionally selected candidates. Thereafter he was called for medical examination which was conducted by the Medical Board, and reviewed by a subsequent Medical Board, wherein the applicant has been declared unfit for the medical condition as opined at page 19 annexure A1.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s) :-
“(a) quash and set aside the letter dated 23.01.2024 issued by Respondent No.1.
(b) direct the Respondent to consider the candidature of Applicant for the post of constable in the respondent's department.
(c) pass any other order or grant any other relief as the Court may deem fit.”
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was declared unfit by the Medical as well as the Review Medical Board on the ground of “due to Stammering”. Thereafter the applicant has got himself examined by a Government Hospital, E.N.T, M.Y. Hospital Indore MP, on 29.01.2024, whereby the Doctors at the said hospital have cleared him of the medical condition, opined by the medical board of the respondents. The report of the same is annexed at page 77. The report by the said Government Hospital is contrary to the report of the Medical Board as well as the report of the Review Medical Board. He places reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.670/2024 decided on 11.03.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the OA and prays for two weeks’ time to file reply. However, he submits that he adopts the arguments preferred by the learned counsel for respondents in OA No.670/2024. The same read as under :
(i) That there is no provision of a further medical re- examination after the Medical and the Review Medical Board. He places reliance on point 14.2 of the advertisement, which reads as under:
“The Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of Computer Based Examination and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. The candidates are advised to go through the requirements of essential qualifications, age, physical and medical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post. Copies of supporting documents will be sought at the time of Document Verification. When scrutiny is undertaken, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the decision of the Commission/ Delhi Police shall be final.”
(ii) Intervention of the Tribunal would amount to an opinion on the judgment of the experts. The experts on the subject have already given a conclusive decision after examining the candidates and rightly rejected them.
(iii) Any intervention at this st
