J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioners assail the correctness of the Order dated 20.08.2024 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’], in O.A. No.1547/2024, whereby the Original Application (‘OA’) preferred by the Respondent came to be allowed and the Petitioners were directed to subject the Respondent to a fresh medical examination by a newly constituted Medical Board.

2. By way of the said OA, the Respondent had challenged the decision of the authorities declaring him medically unfit in the course of the recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (‘SSC’) for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive), pursuant to which the Respondent had been declared medically unfit both in the Detailed Medical Examination [hereinafter referred to as ‘DME’] as well as in the Review Medical Examination [hereinafter referred to as ‘RME’].

3. Thus, the limited question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Tribunal committed any error in directing a fresh medical examination of the Respondent despite the Respondent having been declared medically unfit in both the DME and the RME conducted in accordance with the governing recruitment rules.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts.

5. The Respondent had participated in the recruitment process conducted by the SSC for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive). Upon successfully clearing the earlier stages of the selection process, the Respondent became eligible to undergo medical examination in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and medical standards governing the said post.

6. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent was subjected to a DME on 25.01.2024. During the course of the said examination, the Medical Board found the Respondent to be suffering from Varicose Veins in the left leg and, on that basis, declared him medically unfit for appointment to the post in question.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding, the Respondent exercised the option available under the recruitment process and preferred a request for RME. The Respondent was thereafter subjected to the RME on 31.01.2024. The Review Medical Board, upon conducting an independent examination, concurred with the findings recorded in the DME and once again declared the Respondent medically unfit for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive).

8. Subsequently, the Respondent relied upon a medical certificate dated 30.03.2024 issued by a Government Hospital, wherein it was stated that the Respondent was medically fit to participate in competitive or non-competitive examinations. Relying upon the said certificate, the Respondent contended that the findings recorded in the DME as well as the RME were erroneous.

9. Being aggrieved thereby, the Respondent approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid OA, inter alia, contending that the medical opinion of the recruitment authorities was incorrect and that the medical certificate issued by the Government Hospital demonstrated that he was medically fit for appointment.

10. The Tribunal, while allowing the OA, placed reliance upon its earlier decision rendered in similar circumstances and observed that where a candidate produces a medical certificate from a Government Hospital contradicting the findings recorded in the DME and the RME, the candidate ought to be afforded an opportunity of being examined by a fresh Medical Board.

11. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal vide the Impugned Order dated 20.08.2024 allowed the OA and directed the Petitioners to subject the Respondent to a fresh medical examination by a newly constituted Medical Board within the stipulated time.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal, the Petitioners ha