Orissa High Court
Swapna Sagar Barik vs Union Of India And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 26844 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Swapna Sagar Barik .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Union of India and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Chandrakanta Pradhan, Sr. Panel
Counsel
Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC
Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, Adv.
(For AIIMS)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-05.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-09.05.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
set aside the adverse medical opinion rendered by the RME Board and
to grant him appointment to the post of Constable (GD), asserting that
he is medically fit and has fulfilled all other eligibility criteria.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:
(i) The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a recruitment notification
dated 21.07.2018 for the post of Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs,
NIA, SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Pursuant to this
notification, the petitioner submitted his application within the
stipulated timeline and was allotted Roll No. 46040227894.
(ii) The petitioner duly appeared for the Computer-Based Examination
(CBE) conducted by SSC and was declared qualified. Subsequently, he
also cleared the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency
Test (PET) conducted by CRPF at Bhubaneswar on 28.08.2019.
(iii) The petitioner was then called for a Detailed Medical Examination
(DME), which was held on 27.01.2020 at CISF KRTC Munduli, Cuttack.
During the DME, he was declared medically unfit due to the diagnosis
of hypospadias, a congenital urethral condition. The petitioner was
informed of his right to appeal the decision through a Review Medical
Examination (RME) by submitting the required documents, including a
specialist's fitness certificate and a fee, on or before 15.02.2020.
(iv) In response, the petitioner underwent evaluation by Dr. Sameer Swain,
Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology at SCB Medical
College, Cuttack. Dr. Swain issued a certificate dated 10.02.2020 stating
that the petitioner had previously undergone meatoplasty, a corrective
surgery for hypospadias, and was medically fit for service.
(v) On 24.09.2020, the RME was conducted at GC CRPF, Bhubaneswar.
However, due to the absence of a urologist on the medical board, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
petitioner was referred to Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar for further evaluation.
(vi) Although the hospital suggested a few diagnostic tests, no such tests
were conducted due to confusion regarding who was responsible for
the associated costs. The petitioner was not re-referred for the tests and
continued to wait at the CRPF center for two days without any further
action. Ultimately, the RME Board, without conducting a fresh specialist
examination, reiterated the earlier finding and declared him unfit on the
same grounds.
(vii) The petitioner challenged the RME findings by filing a writ petition
before this Court. By an interim order dated 20.10.2020, the Court
allowed the conditional appointment of the next meritorious candidate
in the list, subject to the final adjudication of the writ petition.
(viii) By order dated 02.04.2024, the Court directed that a Medical Board
comprising Urology specialists be constituted at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar
to re-examine the petitioner's condition. Although a report was
submitted by AIIMS on 22.04.2024, the Court found it to be lacking in
sufficient reasoning regarding the petitioner's fitness in the context of
job performance requirements.
(ix) Consequently, the Court passed another order on 21.06.2024 directing a
fresh medical evaluation by a Board of Urologists at Command Hospital
(Eastern Command), Kolkata, scheduled for 10-11 July 2024. However,
the petitioner failed to appear before the Board on the scheduled date.
He later filed a Memo dated 28.02.2025 seeking recall of the earlier order
and prayed for final disposal of the writ petition.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(x) Meanwhile, the final result of the CT(GD) 2018 recruitment was
declared on 21.01.2021. All available vacancies for the Odisha cadre
were filled in accordance with the year-specific recruitment cycle
followed by SSC. As of the current date, no vacancies from the 2018
cycle remain unfilled or available for reassignment.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner submitted that he cleared all recruitment stages, CBE,
PST/PET, and DV, and was denied appointment solely on medical
grounds.
(ii) Petitioner underwent Meatoplasty (corrective surgery for hypospadias),
and was declared fit by qualified civilian urologists from SCB Medical
College and Hi-Tech Medical College. The civil medical boards and
private hospitals deemed the petitioner fit, indicating that the CAPF
medical board's findings were excessively rigid.
(iii) Despite referral to AIIMS, the report submitted did not clearly assess
the petitioner's ability to discharge duties, thus failing the Court's
direction for a conclusive assessment.
(iv) Petitioner sought recall of the order for examination at the Command
Hospital citing practical difficulties and the elapsed time since the
original application. Having cleared all recruitment phases, petitioner
had a legitimate expectation of appointment, which should not be
frustrated solely on a correctable medical condition.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that, Hypospadias, even if surgically corrected,
constitutes a congenital abnormality affecting urethral function, and
hence falls under general grounds of rejection per the 2015 MHA
guidelines.
(ii) It is further submitted that CAPF Medical Officers better understand the
operational demands of armed forces. Their assessment outweighs civil
medical opinions in such recruitment.
(iii) The petitioner was examined by three-member medical boards during
both DME and RME. There was no deviation from rules or procedures,
nor any bias in assessment.
(iv) Vacancies from the 2018 cycles have been filled and carried forward
posts have also been reallocated in subsequent recruitments. No
provision exists to appoint candidates of 2018 recruitment cycle now.
(v) Relying on judgments like Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi1 and
BedangaTalukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan2, the opposite parties argue that
relaxation of selection norms or reopening recruitment processes
jeopardizes rule-based administration.
(2003) 3 SCC 548.
(2011) 12 SCC 85.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. It is not disputed that the petitioner successfully cleared all stages of the
recruitment process including the Computer-Based Examination (CBE),
Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and
Document Verification (DV). The sole ground for rejection was a
medical finding of hypospadias during the Detailed Medical Examination
(DME), which was reiterated without additional investigation during
the Review Medical Examination (RME).
7. The petitioner underwent corrective surgery (meatoplasty) for the
diagnosed condition prior to the RME and was declared fit by certified
urologists from SCB Medical College and Hi-Tech Medical College.
Despite this, no structured or specialist-led re-evaluation was
conducted during the RME. The petitioner was referred to a civilian
hospital, but due to procedural confusion regarding responsibility for
diagnostic tests, no substantive review occurred. This failure to conduct
a fair and complete re-evaluation vitiates the integrity of the RME
process.
8. The Court notes with concern that the medical board which ultimately
declared the petitioner unfit did not include a qualified urologist, even
though the condition in question was exclusively within the urological
domain. The reliance solely on generalist opinion in such a case cannot
be sustained.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
9. The Court notes with concern that the RME board which reaffirmed the
petitioner's unfitness was not constituted with a domain expert in
urology, despite the medical issue being strictly urological in nature.
The diagnosis of hypospadias and its surgical correction (meatoplasty) fall
squarely within a specialist's purview. In the absence of a urologist on
the examining board, the opinion rendered lacks the requisite depth
and domain-specific scrutiny, thereby undermining the credibility and
completeness of the assessment.
10. It is a settled principle of administrative law that decisions of a medical
board, particularly in matters affecting employment and livelihood,
must conform to standards of reasonableness, fairness, and non-
arbitrariness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Medical
assessments, though technical in nature, are not immune from judicial
scrutiny, especially when they result in the denial of statutory or
constitutional rights.
11. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of
Health Services & Others3 rightly emphasized the following:
"Courts are not expert bodies in matters of medicine. The
competent authority to adjudge the eligibility of a person to
pursue a medical course is the Disability Assessment Board.
However, courts have the jurisdiction to ensure that the
manner in which the Board proceeds and functions is in
compliance with established principles of law. Ultimately,
the Court will have to rely on the opinion of the Board to
adjudicate the legal remedies of a person with disability. The
interference of Courts is not to supplant its opinion for that
of the experts but to ensure that a holistic evaluation of
2024 SCC Online SC 3130.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
competence is conducted and that no person's career is set at
naught with the stroke of a pen."
12. In the present case, multiple urologists have declared the petitioner
medically fit after corrective surgery. The failure to meaningfully
evaluate this updated medical status constitutes a denial of a fair
hearing.
13. The subsequent medical evaluation at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, though
complying with Court orders, lacked sufficient clarity and failed to
address the petitioner's functional fitness in context of job requirements.
The order for re-examination at Command Hospital, Kolkata, though
legitimate, remained unfulfilled due to the petitioner's non-appearance.
However, this lapse must be weighed against the elapsed time, repeated
procedural irregularities, and the petitioner's bona fide efforts to
comply until that stage.
14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. The petitioner, having successfully cleared all stages of the
selection process and having undergone corrective medical treatment,
harboured a reasonable and legitimate expectation of appointment. The
denial of such appointment solely on the basis of a corrigible and
surgically treated condition, without a proper expert re-evaluation,
amounts to arbitrariness and fails to meet the constitutional mandate of
fairness and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
15. The Supreme Court has expounded the principle of legitimate
expectation in a catena of decisions. Notably, in Food Corporation of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries4 the Court held that public
authorities are bound to exercise their powers in a fair and reasonable
manner, and such powers must be deployed in furtherance of public
interest and not arbitrarily. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"7. ... To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a
State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give
due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of
the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that
unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an
abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides
of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would
be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule
of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the
exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for
control of its exercise by judicial review."
16. What emerges from the present record is not a mere procedural lapse
but a deeper institutional indifference that compromises the fairness of
public selection. The petitioner's case reflects a structural rigidity where
procedure overtakes purpose. Medical re-evaluation, when undertaken
without appropriate expertise, becomes a hollow formality. The failure
to engage a specialist in urology, despite the condition being clearly
within that field, transforms the review process into an exercise devoid
of substantive assessment.
17. At the heart of the issue is the idea that fitness must be understood as a
present and functional state, not merely a diagnosis on paper. The
recruitment system, however, remained anchored to a static label,
ignoring the clear professional evidence of correction and fitness. The
(1993) 1 SCC 71.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
process, instead of evolving toward a fair determination, folded back
into institutional inertia.
18. When the State puts forth a structured process of selection, layered,
rigorous, and merit-based, it implicitly signals that those who cross
every threshold can reasonably anticipate a fair culmination. The
petitioner, having cleared each hurdle including those demanding
physical performance and technical competence, had not just an
abstract hope but a grounded expectation. This was not an assumption
conjured in isolation but shaped by consistent conduct of the authority
until the final step.
19. Legitimate expectation, in this context, is not born of entitlement but of
trust. It reflects the petitioner's belief, fostered by successful progression
through the recruitment machinery, that merit would not be overruled
by outdated assessments or unexplained procedural rigidity.
20. When legitimacy in expectation is met with indifference in process, the
damage goes beyond one petitioner. It sends a cautionary signal that
procedural architecture may collapse under the weight of its own
inertia. A system that promises fair opportunity must also build the
capacity to respond to evolving facts with attention and care. To ignore
this is to reduce legitimate expectation to a rhetorical flourish rather
than a real constitutional safeguard.
V. CONCLUSION:
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the rejection of the Petitioner on medical grounds was
arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The failure to constitute a medical
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
board with a qualified urologist and the absence of a proper re-
evaluation after corrective surgery vitiates the review process.
Accordingly, the impugned rejection is quashed.
22. Since the recruitment cycle has since concluded and the notified
vacancies have been filled, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider
the petitioner for appointment against a post of equivalent nature and
status, within the same cadre and pay scale as originally applied for,
subject to his being declared medically fit by a duly constituted medical
board. Such board shall mandatorily include a qualified urologist, and
shall complete the re-evaluation within four weeks from the date of
presentation of this order. It is further made clear that the Petitioner
shall not be meted with unnecessary vindictiveness just because he
approached to this Court
23. If the Petitioner is found medically fit, he shall be appointed to the
aforesaid post without delay, and his seniority shall be fixed with
reference to the date on which candidates from his recruitment batch
were appointed, treating him as part of the same selection cycle.
However, he shall not be entitled to back wages for the intervening
period.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 9th May, 2025/
