Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Medical Board to Assess Petitioner’s Fitness for Assistant Sub-Inspector Role: Questions Raised Over Arbitrary Classification of Hypopigmentation as a Chronic Skin Disease Under Recruitment Guidelines

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, directed that the petitioner undergo a fresh Review Medical Examination (RME) by a newly constituted board. This new medical board must exclude members from the prior DME and RME to ensure impartiality. Additionally, the board must include a specialist dermatologist to evaluate whether the petitioner’s condition, “Hypopigmentation on the prepuce of the penis” (diagnosed as Genital Vitiligo), constitutes a “Chronic Skin Disease” as defined under the 2015 Uniform Medical Guidelines. The court mandated that the respondents complete this exercise within three weeks and provide the petitioner with at least three days’ advance notice for the medical examination. If the petitioner is found medically fit, their recruitment process will proceed.

Facts:

1. Petitioner’s Background: The petitioner is currently serving as a Constable (General Duty) with the respondents and is posted as a Special Task Force (STF) Commando, having completed the necessary training for this specialized role.
2. The Issue of Unfitness:
   • The petitioner participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2022 for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive).
   • During the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 11.12.2024, the petitioner was declared unfit for appointment due to “Hypopigmentation on the prepuce of the penis.”
   • The petitioner applied for a Review Medical Examination (RME), conducted on 16.12.2024, but was again declared unfit. The RME cited Clause 6(19) of the 2015 Medical Guidelines, which disqualifies candidates with chronic skin diseases.
3. Specialist’s Report: The petitioner provided a certificate from a specialist dermatologist, dated 13.12.2024, which stated that their condition was asymptomatic and would not impact their physical or personal activities.
4. Legal Challenge: The petitioner challenged the findings of the DME and RME, arguing that their condition is not a chronic disease and should not disqualify them.

Issues:

1. Does the petitioner’s medical condition, “Hypopigmentation on the prepuce of the penis,” qualify as a Chronic Skin Disease under Clause 6(19) of the 2015 Medical Guidelines?
2. Can the petitioner’s asymptomatic condition serve as valid grounds for declaring them unfit, despite a specialist’s opinion stating that it does not affect physical or professional performance?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. No Chronic Disease: The petitioner argued that their condition is asymptomatic and does not meet the criteria of a chronic skin disease under Clause 6(19) of the 2015 Medical Guidelines.
2. Specialist’s Opinion: The specialist dermatologist’s certificate explicitly stated that the condition should not affect the petitioner’s physical or personal activities, demonstrating their fitness for duty.
3. Job Performance: The petitioner pointed out their current role as an STF Commando, which requires significant physical and mental agility, as evidence of their ability to perform despite the medical condition.
4. Precedent: The petitioner relied on the court’s decision in Durga Singh v. Union of India, where it was held that a medical board must explicitly determine whether a condition qualifies as a chronic skin disease before rejecting a candidate.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Guideline Compliance: The respondents argued that the findings of the DME and RME were based on Clause 6(19) of the 2015 Medical Guidelines, which disqualifies candidates with chronic skin diseases.
2. Medical Expertise: The respondents contended that the court should not interfere with the findings of the medical boards, as these involve specialized technical and medical expertise.
3. Autoimmune Nature: The respondents maintained that the petitioner’s condition is autoimmune in nature and, therefore, justifiably disqualifying.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the 2015 Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination, specifically Clause 6(19), which disqualifies candidates with chronic skin diseases from recruitment. The court noted the following:

1. Requirement of Explicit Findings: The guidelines require the medical board to explicitly classify a condition as chronic before it can disqualify a candidate. This step was missing in the petitioner’s case.
2. Specialist’s Role: The opinion of the specialist dermatologist, which stated that the condition was asymptomatic and would not impact professional performance, was ignored by the RME.
3. Relevance of Performance: The petitioner’s current role as an STF Commando indicated their capability to perform the duties required of the new post, undermining the grounds for rejection.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to Durga Singh v. Union of India, where it held that:

1. A condition must be explicitly classified as a chronic skin disease by the medical board.
2. Asymptomatic conditions, unless proven to impact job performance, cannot serve as automatic grounds for disqualification.
3. The word “possibility” in medical review guidelines highlights the need for fairness and careful consideration in medical assessments.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Failure to Assess Chronic Nature: The DME and RME failed to explicitly determine whether the petitioner’s condition qualifies as a chronic skin disease under the guidelines.
2. Ignored Specialist Opinion: The court observed that the RME disregarded the specialist dermatologist’s opinion that the condition does not affect physical or personal activities.
3. Arbitrary Rejection: The petitioner’s current role as an STF Commando demonstrated their ability to perform physically demanding tasks, making the RME’s findings appear arbitrary.

Conclusion:

The court directed the respondents to:

1. Constitute a fresh Review Medical Examination board, excluding members from the previous DME and RME.
2. Include a specialist dermatologist in the new board.
3. Assess whether the petitioner’s condition qualifies as a chronic skin disease and whether it affects their job performance.
4. Notify the petitioner at least three days in advance of the examination.

The court also ordered that, if the petitioner is found fit, the recruitment process must proceed.

Implications:

1. Fairness in Medical Assessments: The judgment emphasizes the need for transparency and fairness in medical assessments during recruitment.
2. Specialist Involvement: It highlights the importance of including specialists in medical boards for cases involving specific medical conditions.
3. Precedent for Challenging Disqualifications: The case reinforces that candidates can challenge arbitrary medical disqualifications based on improper or insufficient findings.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 271B, Citing Genuine Hardship Due to Raids and Document Seizures as Justification for Delay in Filing Audit Report