to the request made by the applicant's mother, the applicant was considered for compassionate appointment and his name was duly approved by the Screening Committee for appointment as Constable (Executive), subject to completion of the prescribed formalities.

2.2 It is submitted that although the applicant was initially declared medically unfit on four grounds during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), i.e. (i) Obesity/Overweight, (ii) Culrith Varen RT Hand, (iii) Double urethra and (iv) Hyposadias, the Review Medical Examination (RME) found him unfit only on the ground of "Hypospadias", leading to cancellation of his candidature by the impugned order dated 01.12.2025.

2.3 Bing aggrieved by the RME report and the impugned order dated 01.12.2025, the applicant got himself examined at V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi on 19.12.2025, where specialist Urologists opined that he does not require any urological surgery, thereby indicating that the alleged condition did not cause any functional impairment or render him unsuitable for police duties.

2.4 Learned counsel argued that the impugned order and the RME findings are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and unsupported by any reasoned medical assessment. The respondents failed to disclose the applicable medical standards or explain how the alleged condition affects the applicant's functional ability to discharge the duties of a Constable (Executive). The impugned order is non-

3.3 He contended that since the applicant was declared medically unfit by both the DME and the RME, he was rightly not issued the offer of appointment. The decision of the Review Medical Board is final under the applicable rules, and there is no provision for conducting a third medical examination. Consequently, the applicant's candidature was cancelled vide order dated 01.12.2025.

3.4 The learned counsel for the respondents averred that the medical opinion subsequently obtained by the applicant from V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital was procured privately and, therefore, has no veracity being extraneous in nature and outside the purview of the recruitment process and having no binding effect upon the respondents. He added that the applicant does not dispute his medical defect but merely contends that it does not cause any functional impairment and does not warrant any medical disqualification. However, the same cannot invalidate the findings of the duly constituted Medical Boards.

3.5 Lastly, he averred that the respondents acted strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and prescribed medical standards. There was neither any arbitrariness nor any violation of Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice. Since the applicant failed to satisfy the prescribed medical standards, the O.A. is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings/judgments placed on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the applicant was found eligible for compassionate appointment by the Screening Committee. The only ground which ultimately resulted in cancellation of his candidature was the opinion of the RME declaring him medically unfit on account of ‘Hypospadias’. Significantly, while the DME had initially recorded four alleged deficiencies, the RME found the applicant fit on all other counts and retained only the finding relating to ‘Hypospadias’.

6. According to the result of RME produced by the learned counsel for the respondents, the findings of RME are as under:

“For reason No. 3 and 4, the Urologist opined RGU/MCU:

Grossly Normal, No double Urethra seen.

For Hypospadias – Glanular Hypospadias – 2 mm distance from the tip of Glans”

Hence Board declared him – unfit for Hypospadias.”

It is, however, noticed that the Review Medical Board, which ultimately declared the applicant medically unfit on the sole ground of Hypospadias, though opinion was sought b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document