Allowed¶¶27

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Ajeet Kumar Yadav

Service law – recruitment – medical unfitness

Delhi HC5 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/2550/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Staff Selection Commission v. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 2550/2025, decided 05.08.2025 (Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, JJ.) – writ petition allowed against CAT order directing fresh medical examination of candidate declared unfit for hypertension by DME/RME boards; scope of interference with medical expert reports limited to procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or mala fides; five-day blood-pressure monitoring at Composite Hospital, CRPF; respondent proceeded ex-parte; Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 3265/2024 dated 20.08.2024 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3265/2024 set aside; pending application disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶¶27

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Ajeet Kumar Yadav — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the Order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3265/2024 set aside; pending application disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in interfering with the consistent opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Examination (RME) Boards finding the respondent to be suffering from hypertension. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The RME report, rendered after the respondent's blood pressure was monitored over five days at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi and on the Medical Expert's opinion that he suffers from hypertension, should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

It is settled law that reports of the Medical Expert can be interfered with only on very limited grounds, namely non-following of the prescribed procedure, the report being arbitrary, or mala fides.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

None of the limited grounds permitting interference with a Medical Expert's report were made out by the respondent in the present case.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – recruitment – medical unfitness – hypertension. The respondents' candidate was declared 'unfit' by the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination Boards on account of hypertension, after his blood pressure was monitored over five days (30.01.2024 to 03.02.2024) at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi, and the Medical Expert opined that he suffered from hypertension. The Central Administrative Tribunal nonetheless allowed the applicant's O.A. and directed a fresh medical examination by a newly constituted board in a government hospital other than those which had conducted the initial and review examinations, with appointment and notional consequential benefits if declared fit. The High Court held that reports of the Medical Expert can be interfered with only on very limited grounds – non-following of the prescribed procedure, arbitrariness, or mala fides – and none of these grounds was made out; the Tribunal therefore erred in disturbing the consistent expert opinion. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, the respondent having proceeded ex-parte despite service.

¶1

$~16

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 05.08.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 2550/2025 & CM APPL. 12056/2025 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.

¶5

.....Petitioners Through: Ms.Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr.Gaurav Singh Sengan, Adv

versus

AJEET KUMAR YADAV

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶12

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3265/2024, titled Ajeet Kumar Yadav v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. , allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:-

¶14

“6. In view of the decision taken by this Tribunal in various OAs, we cannot take a divergent view in the present matter. Accordingly, the OA is also disposed of with a direction to the competent

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2550/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.08.2025 18:11:33

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

authority/respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government hospital except the hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination. Appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination be passed thereafter under intimation to the applicant.

¶18

7. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the applicant is being declared medically fit, subject to his meeting other criteria, he shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis. No costs.”

¶19

In spite of service of notice, none is appearing for the respondent. The respondent is, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte .

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in interfering with the consistent opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and the Review Medical Examination (RME) Boards finding the respondent to be suffering from hypertension. She submits that prior to the report of the RME, the respondent was also admitted to a hospital and his blood pressure was monitored over a period of five days, which showed him to be suffering from hypertension. She submits that the said report could not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal.

¶21

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2550/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 8.08.2025 18:11:33

¶25

We find that the RME, before declaring the respondent to be ‘unfit’ on account of hypertension, had got him admitted to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi, wherein his blood pressure was monitored over a period of five days, that is, on 30.01.2024, 31.01.2024, 01.02.2024, 02.02.2024, and 03.02.2024. The Medical Expert had given an opinion that he suffers from hypertension. Such report should not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. It is settled law that reports of the Medical Expert can be interfered with only on very limited grounds, like not following the procedure prescribed or the report otherwise being arbitrary or suffering from mala fide . None of these grounds were made out by the respondent in the present case.

¶26