Delhi High Court Allows Third Medical Exam Of UPSC Aspirant, Cites Large Disparity In Disability Assessed By Different Boards

The Delhi High Court has paved the way for a third medical examination of a UPSC aspirant, claiming to have more than 40% hearing disability, after a material difference emerged in the reports prepared by AIIMS and Army Hospital.

While the aspirant contended that there is no stipulated procedure by which he could be subjected to a third medical examination, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain observed,

“While we do appreciate that the finding of the Appellate Medical Board is to be considered as final and, in accordance with the Rules, cannot be made subject to a challenge, however, given the peculiar facts, wherein the initial medical examination board of the petitioner had assessed the petitioner to be suffering from only 1% hearing disability, whereas the Appeal Medical Board has found him to be suffering from a hearing disability of 67.84%, in our view, no error can be found in the learned Tribunal directing the petitioner to appear for another medical examination.”

CAT had ordered the Petitioner-aspirant to undergo a third test after the Medical Board assessed his disability as only 1% but the Appellate Disability Medical Board opined that the petitioner suffers from 67.84% hearing disability.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in terms of the Civil Service Examination Rules, the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board is final, and the candidate cannot be subjected to yet another medical examination at the whims and fancies of the respondents.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there are inconsistencies and variations in the Reports of the experts, and for this reason Petitioner has to be subjected to another medical examination.

Agreeing, the High Court said, “It is not a matter of just difference in medical opinion, but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude.”

Reliance was also placed on Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod (2025) where the Supreme Court had permitted a third medical exam of a candidate after finding “glaring inconsistencies and disparity” between the Reports of the Appellate Medical Board and the hospital to which the candidate therein had been referred to by the Court.

“In similar facts, the Supreme Court in Kore Nihal Pramod (supra), had directed the constitution of an Expert Medical Board consisting of members to be nominated by the Director of AIIMS, Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme, and the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi. We are inclined to adopt the same process in the present case,” the Court said.

Accordingly, it directed that the third examination of the petitioner shall be conducted by a Board of doctors having specialisation in the field of assessing the hearing disability.

Appearance: Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Siddharatha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Khushi Ramuka, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Ms. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for R-2.

Case title: Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1348

Case no.: W.P.(C) 13162/2025

Click here to read order