SSC SI/ASI-GD Recruitment 2019: Varying grounds of unfitness justify fresh medical board at Army Hospital R&R, holds SC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has directed that 21 candidates declared medically unfit in both the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Examination (RME) under the SSC SI/ASI-GD Recruitment 2019 be subjected to a fresh medical examination at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi, holding that the admitted and substantial variation between the grounds of unfitness cited in the DME and RME — compounded by contrary opinions from civil government hospitals — cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of both boards’ findings to warrant a fresh and comprehensive examination. Justice Anand Sharma, in a common judgment disposing all 21 connected writ petitions, directed that the findings of the Army Hospital Medical Board shall be final and binding on both parties.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notification for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF, under its SI/ASI-GD (Male/Female) Examination 2019.

The petitioners — 21 in number, hailing from various districts of Rajasthan — applied online after meeting the eligibility criteria. The selection process comprised multiple mandatory stages: Paper-I, Physical Standard Test (PST)/Physical Endurance Test (PET), Paper-II, and Detailed Medical Examination (DME). All petitioners successfully cleared the written examinations and physical tests and were consequently shortlisted for the DME.

Upon undergoing the DME, each petitioner was declared medically unfit on account of various deficiencies — including squint, deviated nasal septum (DNS), cubitus valgus or varus, tinea versicolor, tattoo marks, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, and defective distant vision, among others. Each petitioner then exercised the right to a Review Medical Examination (RME) before a Review Medical Board at GC-I, CRPF, Ajmer, as provided by an Office Memorandum dated 31 May 2021. However, in the RME also, each petitioner was declared unfit — in several cases, for entirely different reasons than those cited in the DME. Several petitioners further obtained opinions from civil government specialists, including those at Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, which found no evidence of the conditions cited in the DME or RME. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present batch of connected writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, challenging the memoranda of unfitness issued in the DME and the results of the RME.

Counsel for the petitioners — led by Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, along with Mr. Vikash Meena, Ms. Kiran Meena, Mr. Bajrang Sepat (for Ms. Komal Kumari Giri), Mr. Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi, Mr. Heera Lal Gothwal, Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma, and Mr. Dinesh Yadav — submitted that the action of the respondents was arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the medical evidence on record.

It was specifically argued that there existed a clear and demonstrable variance between the findings of the respondents’ own medical boards — the DME and RME having cited different grounds of unfitness in respect of the same petitioners — and those of independent government specialists. It was further contended that no detailed clinical findings or confirmatory diagnostic reports had been supplied to substantiate the conclusions of unfitness, and that the exclusion of the petitioners from further participation in the selection process despite their having cleared all earlier stages was contrary to principles of fairness.

Counsel for the respondents — Mr. Devesh Yadav appearing on behalf of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Ashish Kumar — submitted that the action of declaring the petitioners medically unfit had been taken strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the recruitment advertisement. It was specifically urged that Clause 11.7 of the advertisement clearly prescribed the procedure for DME and RME and categorically stipulated that the decision of the Review Medical Board shall be final, with no further provision for appeal or re-examination. It was contended that the petitioners could not seek the constitution of yet another Medical Board, as that would amount to seeking differential treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents further submitted that both the DME and RME were conducted by duly constituted Medical Boards in accordance with MHA guidelines, that no mala fides had been alleged against the Board members, and that the medical standards prescribed for CAPF personnel are considerably more stringent than those applicable to civil services — rendering the opinions of civil hospitals incapable of overriding the specialised assessment of the recruitment boards.

Justice Anand Sharma, after carefully examining the records, noted that the material on record “unequivocally demonstrates that there exists an admitted and substantial variation between the findings recorded in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and the Review Medical Examination (RME), inasmuch as each of the reports assigns different and at times inconsistent reasons for declaring the petitioners medically unfit.” The Court found this inconsistency to be further compounded by the reports issued by civil hospitals, which “prima facie cast a cloud of doubt over the correctness and reliability of the conclusions drawn in the DME and RME.”

The Court acknowledged the respondents’ contention that CAPF medical standards are more stringent than those for civil posts and that civil hospital opinions cannot ordinarily override the findings of specialised recruitment Medical Boards. The Court also acknowledged that ordinarily it “would exercise restraint and would be slow in interfering with expert medical opinions, particularly those rendered by duly constituted Review Medical Boards.” However, the “peculiar facts” of the present cases — marked by evident inconsistencies in the grounds of unfitness across the DME and RME, and reinforced by contradictory civil government hospital reports — persuaded the Court to “adopt a course that would dispel any lingering doubt and ensure fairness to all parties concerned.”

In that view, Justice Anand Sharma directed a fresh and comprehensive medical examination by a duly constituted Medical Board at the Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi, observing that its standards are “indisputably at par with, if not more rigorous than, those prescribed for CAPFs.” The opinion so rendered by the Army Hospital Medical Board was directed to be treated as “final, conclusive and binding upon both the petitioners and the respondents.”

The Court directed the respondents to approach the competent authority at Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, along with the DME and RME opinions of each petitioner, for the constitution of separate Medical Boards in respect of each petitioner — comprising at least three specialised Medical Officers relevant to the alleged medical unfitness. The respondents were directed to furnish intimation to each petitioner at least seven days in advance, specifying the date, time, and place of examination. The Medical Board was directed to conduct a thorough examination and prepare an exhaustive report in duplicate — one copy for the respondents and one for the petitioner concerned. In the event a report proves favourable to any petitioner, the respondents were directed to proceed to consider that petitioner for further steps in the selection process and, if otherwise found eligible, extend appointment in accordance with law. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within forty-five days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. All 21 writ petitions, along with all pending applications, stood disposed of accordingly.

Case Details