Conflicting medical opinions from review board at same hospital (within days) and subsequent independent government hospital warrant fresh medical examination by different board for fairness to provisionally selected candidate.

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