Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
ARUNKRISHNA K.C – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/26281/2020
Medical Examination - Recruitment - Recruitment Medical Examination Guidelines - The court examined the adherence to procedures outlined in the guidelines for medical evaluations for paramilitary forces, validating the rejection of candidates based on substantiated medical findings and objective data.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions challenged the findings of Review Medical Boards regarding the disqualification of candidates for paramilitary roles due to medical reasons, where candidates presented further medical evidence countering their initial unfitness results.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of the RMB's findings when based on objective medical data, indicating that COVID-19-related limitations did not preclude the standard requirements from being followed; some candidates warranted further review.
Issues: Whether the Review Medical Boards properly adhered to the medical examination guidelines and if the rejection of candidates was justified based on valid medical grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that judicial interference in medical decision-making is limited when findings are supported by objective evidence and guidelines; further exams were warranted for some candidates pending evidence of negligible defects.
Final Decision: Writ petitions dismissed except for specific cases requiring further Review Medical Examinations.
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).16131/2020, WP(C).22475/2020, WP(C).22704/2020, WP(C).23817/2020, WP(C).23899/2020, WP(C).23974/2020, WP(C).24041/2020, WP(C).24526/2020, WP(C).25132/2020, WP(C).25240/2020, WP(C).25377/2020, WP(C).25414/2020, WP(C).25455/2020, WP(C).25487/2020, WP(C).25606/2020, WP(C).26149/2020, WP(C).26245/2020, WP(C).26250/2020, WP(C).26254/2020, WP(C).26267/2020, WP(C).26271/2020, WP(C).26281/2020, WP(C).26318/2020, WP(C).26322/2020, WP(C).26336/2020, WP(C).26338/2020, WP(C).26339/2020, WP(C).26377/2020, WP(C).26799/2020, WP(C).26817/2020, WP(C).26818/2020, WP(C).26853/2020, WP(C).27823/2020, WP(C).263/2021 ]
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021
1.The challenge in these writ petitions is with regard to the conduct of Review Medical Examinations (RME for short) by Review Medical Boards (RMB for short) formulated for the purpose of selection of candidates. The petitioners are applicants for the post of Constables (General Duty) (male/female) in the Central Armed Police Forces, BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA & SSF & Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles on the basis of selection conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The selection procedure consisted of a computer based examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission followed by a physical efficiency test/physical standard test and Detailed Medical Examination (DME for short). The conduct of the DME was regulated by the revised guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police forces and Assam Rifles issued in May, 2015. Uniform guidelines were provided for the conduct of DME as well as for RME, wherever found necessary.
2.The petitioners in these writ petitions had undergone the DME and had been found unfit for various reasons. They had submitted appeals as provided in the guidelines along with medical certificates from relevant specialists disputing the findings in the DME. In most of the cases, the appeals had been allowed and RMEs had been conducted by the RMB in each of these cases. The petitioners challenge the findings of the RMB on the ground that such findings are either not supported by any relevant material or that the guidelines for the RME have been flouted while conducting the re-examinations. In most of these cases, the petitioners have also produced further certificates from Medical Specialists to show that the findings of the RMB are unwarranted and incorrect.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are young men and women typically between the age of 20 and 27 and that the rejection of their candidature on the ground that they are physically unfit is completely unsupported by any material. They submit that they have succeeded in proving before the appellate forum that the reasons stated by the DME Board for rejecting their candidature were completely unfounded and the RMB was directed to consider the issue. It is contended that the RMB having been required to re-consider the rejection ought to carry out the examinations specifically in terms of the guidelines issued and should exercise utmost diligence in the re-examination and the candidate should be rejected only if there is no other alternative.
4.The learned counsel relies on a direction issued by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C).No.9804 of 2018 and another decision dated 14.08.2012 again of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C).No.13461 of 2009 and of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in W.P.(C).No.100046 of 2020 and connected cases dated 27.08.2020 and of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP.No.2147 of 2012 and of a Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) Nos.2393/20 & connected cases dated 12.1.2021, where the RMB was directed to be held again.
5. The petitioners contend that in the RMEs conducted, the guidelines have been given a go by and the attempt has been to reject the candidature of the petitioners based on the repo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
