SSC Recruitment | Medical Opinions Obtained Independently By Candidate Can't Justify Fresh Medical Examination: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing a fresh medical examination of a candidate who had been declared medically unfit during the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that courts must...
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing a fresh medical examination of a candidate who had been declared medically unfit during the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).
A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that courts must exercise restraint while interfering with the medical opinion of expert boards constituted under recruitment rules and cannot direct repeated medical examinations merely on the basis of independently obtained medical certificates.
The case arose after the respondent candidate participated in the recruitment process conducted by the SSC for appointment as a Constable (Executive). After clearing the earlier stages of selection, he underwent a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on January 25, 2024, during which the Medical Board declared him medically unfit on account of varicose veins in the left leg.
The candidate subsequently sought a Review Medical Examination (RME), which was conducted on January 31, 2024. The Review Medical Board independently assessed his condition and concurred with the findings of the DME, again declaring him medically unfit for appointment.
Following this, the candidate obtained a medical certificate dated March 30, 2024 from a government hospital stating that he was medically fit to participate in competitive or non-competitive examinations. Relying on this certificate, he approached the CAT challenging the decision of the recruitment authorities.
The Tribunal allowed the candidate's plea and directed the authorities to subject him to a fresh medical examination by a newly constituted Medical Board.
Challenging the order, the SSC approached the High Court.
The High Court observed that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to medical fitness in recruitment to disciplined services is limited.
“Interference with the opinion of the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board is permissible only in narrowly circumscribed situations, such as where there is a breach of the prescribed procedure, a demonstrable discrepancy between the findings of the DME and the RME, or where the condition in question requires examination by a specialist who was not part of the Board,” it observed,
In the case at hand, the Court observed a clear concurrence of medical opinion between the DME and the RME regarding the medical condition of the Respondent.
“The case is not one where the findings of the two Medical Boards are inconsistent or contradictory so as to give rise to any legitimate doubt regarding the correctness of the assessment. On the contrary, both Boards have uniformly found the Respondent to be suffering from the same medical condition which renders him unfit for appointment in accordance with the applicable recruitment standards,” it said.
The Court added that medical opinions procured independently by a candidate from private or other hospitals cannot, by themselves, constitute a valid ground for directing a fresh medical examination.
“More importantly, the said certificate was obtained by the Respondent on his own volition and not pursuant to any reference made by the Medical Boards during the recruitment process. 28. In such circumstances, permitting a candidate to rely upon independently obtained medical certificates to seek repeated medical examinations would undermine the certainty and finality of the recruitment process,” it said.
As such, the Court found that the Tribunal had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review, and set aside the impugned order directing constitution of a fresh Medical Board.
Appearance: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Anil Singhal, Adv. for Respondent
Case title: SSC v. Yashpal Singh
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3884/2025