Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, disposed of a writ petition filed by a Civil Services Examination candidate with benchmark disability, directing the constitution of a new expert medical board to re-evaluate his hearing disability.
The Court observed that there was a “high magnitude difference” between the reports of the initial medical board (AIIMS), which assessed the petitioner’s disability at 1%, and the Appellate Medical Board (Army Hospital R&R), which found 67.84% hearing disability. Given this inconsistency, the Court held that ordering another medical examination was justified.
“It is not a matter of just difference in medical opinion, but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that a fresh medical board be constituted, consisting of specialists from AIIMS, CGHS, and the Army Research and Referral Hospital, excluding any doctors who had previously examined the petitioner. This board’s opinion, to be delivered within three weeks, would be final and binding on all parties.
Facts
The petitioner, a successful candidate of the Civil Services Examination 2024, appeared under the Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) category, claiming a permanent hearing disability exceeding 40%.
Following his selection and securing an All-India Rank of 1001, he underwent the mandatory medical examination at AIIMS on 27 May 2025, which assessed his disability at 1%, thereby declaring him unfit for appointment under the PwBD quota.
Challenging this, he appealed to the Appellate Disability Medical Board at the Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, which conducted a detailed examination between 3 July and 11 July 2025 and concluded that his hearing disability was 67.84%. Despite repeated requests, this report was not uploaded or communicated to him.
Instead, by an email dated 5 August 2025, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) directed him to appear before a third medical board at Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (Lady Hardinge Medical College). The petitioner challenged this direction before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The CAT, by order dated 21 August 2025, permitted the petitioner to join the training program provisionally but also directed him to appear before the third medical board and instructed the respondents to upload the Appellate Board’s report. The petitioner then approached the High Court, contesting only the direction for a third medical examination.
Issues
- Whether the respondents were justified in subjecting the petitioner to a third medical examination after the Appellate Disability Medical Board had already issued its final report.
- Whether the Appellate Medical Board’s decision is conclusive under the Civil Services Examination Rules.
- Whether the Tribunal’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that under the Civil Services Examination Rules, the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board is final and binding and cannot be reopened by another medical examination. The Army Hospital (R&R) Board, comprising experts in the field, had already certified his disability at 67.84%, qualifying him under the benchmark disability category.
He contended that the DoPT’s decision to subject him to a third medical evaluation was arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction, and contrary to established procedure. The Rules and examination advertisement did not contemplate multiple re-examinations.
He also distinguished the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kore Nihal Pramod, arguing that in that case, the Appellate Board had declared the candidate unfit, and only because of conflicting medical reports, the Court ordered another test. Here, by contrast, the Appellate Board had already declared him eligible, making a third test unnecessary.
Respondent’s Arguments
The counsel for the Union of India argued that the decision to conduct a third medical examination was warranted due to the glaring inconsistency between the AIIMS assessment of 1% disability and the Army Hospital’s finding of 67.84%.
This was not a mere difference of opinion but a serious contradiction requiring expert reconciliation. The respondent maintained that the government’s intent was to ensure procedural fairness and factual accuracy, not to harass the petitioner.
The State relied on Kore Nihal Pramod v. Department of Personnel and Training, decided by the Supreme Court on 28 July 2025, where the Court, faced with a similar inconsistency between medical reports, ordered the constitution of an independent medical board comprising specialists from AIIMS, CGHS, and the Army R&R Hospital. It was thus argued that the same model should apply here.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Civil Services Examination Rules, which stipulate that the Appellate Medical Board’s opinion shall ordinarily be final. However, it clarified that this rule does not preclude the constitution of a special medical board where there is an extraordinary discrepancy in medical findings that undermines the reliability of existing reports.
The Bench observed that the difference between 1% and 67.84% could not be treated as a routine variance. It called for an independent, multi-institutional medical evaluation to ensure the integrity and fairness of the recruitment process.
While agreeing that the Rules intend to make the Appellate Board’s report final, the Court held that this finality cannot operate in a vacuum when the data itself raises serious doubts about accuracy. Hence, the High Court aligned its reasoning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kore Nihal Pramod.
Precedent Analysis
- Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod (SLP(C) No. 17995/2025, SC, 28 July 2025) – The Supreme Court directed a new expert board when conflicting medical reports (declaring one candidate fit and another unfit) created serious inconsistencies.
Relied upon to justify the creation of a new board in this case. - Union of India v. M. Selvakumar (2017) 3 SCC 504 – The Supreme Court emphasized that benchmark disability must be determined strictly per medical standards and rules, without arbitrary interference.
Referenced to underscore that procedural integrity must be maintained while protecting the rights of PwBD candidates. - Ashutosh Kumar Singh v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2023) – The Delhi High Court held that when medical boards issue contradictory findings, the employer must seek an independent opinion to prevent prejudice to the candidate.
Cited for the principle that discrepancies require independent resolution to preserve fairness.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Navin Chawla, writing for the Bench, acknowledged that ordinarily, the Appellate Medical Board’s decision is final, but found the degree of divergence between the two reports too significant to ignore. The Court reasoned that when medical findings differ so drastically, the only equitable solution is to refer the matter to an independent composite board.
“It is not a matter of just difference in medical opinion, but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude.”
The Court directed that the new medical board should include:
- One member nominated by the Director, AIIMS;
- One member nominated by the Director General, CGHS; and
- One member nominated by the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital.
The board must submit its findings within three weeks, and its report will be final. The Court also clarified that doctors who had earlier examined the petitioner must not be part of this new board to ensure impartiality.
On the issue of the petitioner’s participation in training, the Court clarified that its previous order of 28 August 2025 had only stayed the direction for a third medical test, not the Tribunal’s directive allowing him to join training. The Tribunal was asked to consider compliance separately in appropriate proceedings.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to require another medical evaluation, emphasizing that extraordinary discrepancies necessitate independent verification. The Court adopted the Supreme Court’s approach in Kore Nihal Pramod and ordered a joint expert medical board whose findings will be final and binding.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Implications
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness in recruitment processes involving persons with disabilities. It balances administrative finality with scientific integrity, ensuring that medical assessments determining benchmark disabilities are credible, uniform, and free from arbitrariness.
By aligning with Kore Nihal Pramod, the Court set a precedent that extreme medical inconsistencies justify forming multi-institutional expert boards, especially in competitive examinations affecting candidates’ livelihoods.
FAQs
1. Can the government order another medical examination after the Appellate Board’s report?
Yes, but only in exceptional cases where there are glaring inconsistencies in earlier medical reports that question the reliability of assessments.
2. Who will constitute the new medical board in such cases?
It will comprise experts nominated by the Director of AIIMS, Director General of CGHS, and Chief of Army R&R Hospital, ensuring institutional independence.
3. Is the Appellate Medical Board’s opinion always final?
Ordinarily, yes. But when contradictions are of “high magnitude,” the court may authorize an independent medical re-evaluation to uphold fairness.