[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission And Anr vs Mandeep on 19 March, 2026
$~95 and 99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 1624/2025 and CM APPL. 7908/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC
with Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Mr.
Vinayak Aren & Ms.
Aishwarya Nigam, Advs.
versus
MANDEEP .....Respondent
Through: None.
+ W.P.(C) 4731/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with
Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev
Pratap Shahi, Mr.Varun Pratap
Singh & Mr. Yogya Bhatia
Advs.
versus
AMIT KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. These Writ Petitions arise out of the same recruitment process,
namely, recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive),
Male/Female, in Delhi Police Examination, 2023, and assail Orders
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi directing that the respective Respondents be
subjected to a fresh medical examination before an appropriate
Medical Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals
which had conducted the Detailed Medical Examination and the
Review Medical Examination.
2. Since the petitions arise from the same advertisement, concern
the same post and recruitment framework, involve disqualification on
the ground of the same medical ground, and raise a common question
touching the permissible scope of judicial interference with concurrent
medical opinions rendered within the recruitment process, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The first petition, W.P.(C) 1624/2025, has been instituted by the
Staff Selection Commission and the Delhi Police assailing the order
dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.
3144/2024 titled Mandeep v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. The
second petition i.e. W.P.(C) 4731/2025 challenges the order dated
20.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3234/2024
titled Amit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission &Anr. In both
matters, the learned Tribunal directed a fresh medical examination and
further directed that, in the event of the candidate being found
medically fit and otherwise eligible, appointment be extended with
consequential benefits on a notional basis.
4. For convenience, the facts in W.P.(C) 1624/2025 (Mandeep) are
noticed first, followed by the facts in the petition concerning Amit
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
Kumar. The common issue of law and the submissions are thereafter
proposed to be considered together.
FACTS IN W.P.(C) 1624/2025
(Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Mandeep)
5. The present Petition assails the order dated 09.08.2024 passed
by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"] in O.A. No.
3144/2024, titled Mandeep v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. By
the said order, the learned Tribunal directed the Petitioners to subject
the Respondent to a fresh medical examination before an appropriate
Medical Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals
which had conducted the Detailed Medical Examination and the
Review Medical Examination. It was further directed that, in the event
of the Respondent being found medically fit and otherwise eligible,
appropriate consequential benefits be extended on a notional basis.
6. Recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive), Male and
Female, in Delhi Police Examination, 2023 was undertaken under the
applicable recruitment framework, including the Delhi Police
(Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, the relevant Standing
Order dated 08.06.2022, and the notice of examination issued by the
Staff Selection Commission. The notification for recruitment was
issued on 01.09.2023 and online applications were accepted up to
30.09.2023. The Respondent participated in the said recruitment
process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male. The Staff
Selection Commission conducted the Computer-Based Examination
on a pan-India basis from 14.11.2023 to 03.12.2023, and declared the
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
result on 31.12.2023. The candidates who qualified were thereafter
subjected to the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test
(PE&MT), which was conducted by Delhi Police.
7. The Petitioners state that, in order to complete the medical
examination process in a time-bound manner, the Ministry of Home
Affairs decided on 16.01.2024 that the medical examination of
PE&MT-qualified candidates would be conducted through CAPF
hospitals, and sufficient Medical Boards were accordingly constituted
at designated centres in Delhi and NCR. The Respondent, having
qualified the earlier stages of selection, was thereafter subjected to
medical examination in accordance with the recruitment process so
structured.
8. The Respondent underwent Detailed Medical Examination on
19.01.2024 [hereinafter referred to as DME], where he was declared
medically unfit. At his instance, a Review Medical
Examination[hereinafter referred to as RME] was thereafter conducted
on 29.01.2024, in which the opinion of unfitness was maintained. As
recorded by the learned Tribunal, the medical disqualification in the
Review Medical Examination was on account of "Isolated Systolic
Hypertension". The DME had noted hypertension and another
condition, though the disqualification ultimately retained in the RME
continued to rest on the hypertension-related finding.
9. Consequent upon the aforesaid medical opinion, no
appointment came to be issued in favour of the Respondent. The
Respondent, however, obtained a subsequent medical opinion from a
Government hospital, which, according to him, did not support the
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
finding recorded by the medical boards constituted within the
recruitment process.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent approached the learned
Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3144/2024, seeking, in substance, setting
aside of the review medical report dated 29.01.2024, a direction for
further consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of
Constable (Exe.) (Male), and, if necessary, a direction for re-medical
examination at a Government hospital of repute.
11. The Petitioners herein opposed the Original Application and
specifically contended before the learned Tribunal that there exists no
provision for any further medical re-examination after the Medical
Board and the Review Medical Board; that intervention would amount
to sitting in appeal over expert opinion; that the applicant had already
been medically examined twice; and that, in the absence of mala fides
or bias, no interference was warranted, particularly having regard to
the stringent selection process and the nature of duties in Delhi Police.
12. The learned Tribunal, with the consent of the parties, proceeded
to decide the Original Application at the admission stage. It observed
that, in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had decided O.A.
No. 594/2024 titled "Ravina v. SSC and Ors." on 11.03.2024.
Proceeding on the basis that it could not take a divergent view, the
learned Tribunal directed the Petitioners to conduct a fresh medical
examination of the Respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical
Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals which had
already conducted the DME and the RME.
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
13. It further directed that appropriate orders with respect to the
Respondent's candidature be passed on the basis of the outcome of
such fresh examination, and that, in the event of the respondent being
found medically fit and otherwise meeting the requisite criteria, he be
granted appointment with consequential benefits on a notional basis.
14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the Petitioners have
approached this Court.
FACTS IN [W.P.(C) No. 4731/2025]
(Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Amit Kumar)
15. The present Petition assails the order dated 20.08.2024
[hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"] passed by the
learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3234/2024, titled Amit Kumar v. Staff
Selection Commission & Anr. By the Impugned Order, the learned
Tribunal similarly directed the Petitioners to conduct a fresh medical
examination of the Respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical
Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals which had
conducted the DME and the RME, and further directed that, in the
event of the respondent being found medically fit and subject to his
meeting the other criteria, he be appointed forthwith with
consequential benefits on a notional basis.
16. Mr. Amit Kumar (Respondent herein), too, was a candidate in
the same recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive)
Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2023. The recruitment framework,
timeline, and process are the same. The Ministry of Home Affairs, on
16.01.2024, directed constitution of Medical Boards for conducting
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
DME and RME of candidates for the said recruitment, and the medical
examination of all such candidates was decided to be conducted
through CAPF hospitals.
17. In pursuance thereof, Medical Boards were constituted at four
centres, including Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New
Delhi. The Respondent, Amit Kumar, reported at the said hospital for
his Detailed Medical Examination on 21.01.2024, where he was
declared medically unfit on account of "Hypertension". Thereafter, the
Review Medical Examination Board, considering the report of the
DME as well, again declared him medically unfit on account of
"Hypertension".
18. Consequent upon the RME, no offer of appointment came to be
issued in favour of the Respondent. He thereafter got himself
medically examined at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Hospital, where he
was allegedly declared fit, and relied upon the said report before the
learned Tribunal. The Petitioners' case is that the said opinion,
obtained dehors the recruitment process, could not displace the
findings recorded by the duly constituted Medical Boards within the
recruitment process.
19. The Respondent consequently instituted O.A. No. 3234/2024
before the learned Tribunal, praying for quashing of the impugned
medical report, for further consideration of his candidature for
appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in accordance with
merit, and, if need be, for subjecting him to re-medical examination at
any Government hospital of high repute. The learned Tribunal
recorded the Applicant's submission that the subsequent Government
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
hospital report had cleared him of the medical condition recorded by
the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board.
20. The learned Tribunal, hearing the matter at the admission stage,
noted that in several decisions involving similar circumstances and the
same condition, namely hypertension, the Tribunal disposed of the
Original Applications by directing fresh medical examination through
an independent Medical Board. The learned Tribunal observed that it
could not take a divergent view in the matter. On that basis, the
learned Tribunal directed a fresh medical examination of the
respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical Board in a
Government hospital other than the hospitals which had already
conducted the initial and the review medical examination, and further
directed that, in the event of the Respondent being found medically fit
and meeting the other criteria, he be granted appointment forthwith
with consequential benefits on a notional basis.
21. It is this order that is assailed by the Petitioners in this Writ
Petition before this Court.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
22. In the aforesaid backdrop, the common question that arises for
consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in directing
a fresh medical examination of the respective Respondents before an
independent Medical Board in another Government hospital,
notwithstanding the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review
Medical Examination having both returned concurrent opinions of
unfitness on the ground of hypertension-related medical condition, and
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
in the absence of any finding of mala fides, bias, or demonstrable
violation of the prescribed recruitment framework.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23. The extent of judicial review in matters arising from medical
disqualification in recruitment to the police and allied disciplined
forces is no longer res integra. The controlling principles stand
explained by this Court in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman
Singh1, where it was observed that, while judicial review is not wholly
excluded, the Court does not sit in appeal over the opinion of duly
constituted Medical Boards. Interference is confined to limited and
well-defined situations, such as breach of the prescribed procedure,
patent discrepancy between the findings of the Detailed Medical
Examination and the Review Medical Examination on the
disqualifying condition, absence of requisite specialist evaluation
where the nature of the ailment so requires, disregard of material
generated within the recruitment process itself, or comparable
infirmity going to the fairness or integrity of the medical assessment.
24. Equally, the said decision makes it clear that medical opinions
procured by a candidate independently, whether from a private
hospital or even from another Government hospital, do not by
themselves furnish a legitimate basis to direct a fresh medical
examination. The designated Medical Boards, constituted within the
recruitment framework, assess fitness not in the abstract, but in the
specific context of the service and post concerned. In recruitment to a
disciplined force such as Delhi Police, the assessment necessarily
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
proceeds on standards calibrated to the nature of the duties attached to
the post.
25. At the same time, Aman Singh (supra) does not postulate an
inflexible rule that a fresh medical examination can never be directed.
The law, as explained therein, is more nuanced. Where the record
discloses a real procedural infirmity, or where the medical process
itself suffers from a defect of a kind recognized in law, judicial
intervention may well be warranted. The question, therefore, is not
whether such a direction is conceptually impermissible, but whether
the facts of the present cases disclose circumstances of that character.
26. The importance of a case-specific scrutiny is also underscored
by this Court's decision in Staff Selection Commission v. Ravina
Meena2, where the order of the learned Tribunal was set aside and the
matter remanded for fresh consideration precisely because the
Tribunal had not dealt with the individual facts of that case and had
instead disposed of the matter in a generalized manner. The legality of
interference with medical disqualification must turn on the facts of the
individual candidate and the nature of the infirmity alleged in the
process.
27. Similarly, Staff Selection Commission v. Amit Goswami3
illustrates the nature of an exceptional case where interference may
legitimately be sustained. There, the review medical decision itself
suffered from a foundational procedural defect. That decision,
therefore, cannot be understood as sanctioning routine directions for
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600
2024:DHC:9147-DB
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7985
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
yet another medical examination; it is, on the contrary, an example of
intervention founded upon a demonstrable infirmity in the medical
process itself.
28. In the present cases, however, no such infirmity is shown to
exist. The respective Respondents were subjected first to a Detailed
Medical Examination and thereafter, at their instance, to a Review
Medical Examination. In both, the opinion of unfitness for the post
was maintained. The disqualification on account of hypertension
remained undisturbed and, was retained in the review medical
examination. In terms of the principles explained in Aman Singh
(Supra), that does not amount to a discrepancy of the kind which
would justify judicial interference, for the disqualifying condition
stood concurrently affirmed.
29. This aspect assumes added significance in light of the decisions
of this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Vineet
Kumar and Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Rambabu Verma4. In
those cases as well, the issue related to medical disqualification on
account of hypertension/high blood pressure. This Court held that
where the candidate had been found unfit in the DME and again in the
RME, and the record disclosed repeated high blood pressure readings
within the recruitment process itself, a fresh medical examination
could not be directed merely because the candidate later procured
medical reports showing normal parameters. The Court also observed
that such cases could not lightly be treated as mere instances of white-
coat hypertension, particularly when the designated medical boards
2024:DHC:9506-DB
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
had recorded the candidate's condition in the course of the prescribed
process.
30. The rationale of the aforesaid decisions applies with equal force
here. The foundation of the respective Respondents' challenge before
the learned Tribunal was essentially a subsequent medical opinion
obtained from another hospital, dehors the recruitment process. That
circumstance, by itself, could not have displaced the concurrent
opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review Medical
Examination, unless the Respondent had first established some legally
cognizable infirmity in the process undertaken by the designated
medical boards. No such infirmity was identified.
31. Significantly, the learned Tribunal has recorded that it was not
examining or commenting upon the merits of the claim. The
Impugned Orders does not return any finding that the prescribed
procedure had been breached. It does not record any discrepancy of
the nature recognised in law. Nor does it find mala fides, bias,
perversity, or any other procedural irregularity affecting the integrity
of the medical process. Absent such findings, the direction for a fresh
medical examination lacks an articulated legal basis.
32. What appears, instead, is that the learned Tribunal considered
itself bound to adopt the same course as had been adopted by a Co-
ordinate Bench in Ravina Meena. That approach cannot be sustained.
Consistency in adjudication is undoubtedly a desirable institutional
value. But consistency cannot be achieved by dispensing with the
obligation to examine the facts of the individual case. Where the
legality of interference with medical disqualification turns upon
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
specific features of the process and the record, parity of outcome
cannot substitute for parity of reasoning.
33. Both the Impugned Orders thus suffers from a two-fold
infirmity. First, it directs a fresh medical examination without first
identifying any exceptional circumstance recognised by law as
warranting such interference. Second, it does so while expressly
declining to examine the merits of the medical determination itself.
The result is that a substantive direction altering the course of the
recruitment process came to be issued without a corresponding
adjudicatory foundation.
34. Learned counsel for the Petitioners is, therefore, justified in
contending that the learned Tribunal exceeded the permissible bounds
of judicial review in matters of expert medical assessment. Once the
record disclosed concurrent findings of unfitness returned by the duly
constituted medical boards, the learned Tribunal could not have
directed a third medical examination merely because the Respondent
had obtained a subsequent opinion which was favourable to him.
35. This Court is also mindful that the present recruitment pertains
to Delhi Police. In such recruitments, the standards of medical fitness
are not to be diluted by abstract notions of equivalence with general
medical fitness. The question is not whether the candidate is medically
manageable in ordinary life, but whether he satisfies the standards
prescribed for appointment to the post. That assessment is one which
the recruitment framework entrusts in the first instance to the
designated medical authorities.
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
36. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in directing a fresh
medical examination of the Respondents. The Impugned Orders
cannot, therefore, be sustained.
CONCLUSION
37. Accordingly, the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned
Tribunal in O.A. No. 3144/2024, Mandeep v. Staff Selection
Commission & Anr., is set aside.
38. The order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in
O.A. No. 3234/2024, Amit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission &
Anr., is also set aside.
39. The present Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
41. The pending application, also stands closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MARCH 19, 2026
s.godara/ad
W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
16:28:55
