In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal), whereby a candidate of the Civil Services Examination, 2024, was directed to appear for a third medical examination, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain directed the constitution of a Board of Doctors that would conduct the exam as the inconsistencies in the previous reports of the petitioner were of a high magnitude.
The petitioner had participated in the Civil Services Examination, 2024, under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), claiming a permanent hearing disability of more than 40%. The petitioner cleared the exam and secured an All India Rank of 1001. Thereafter, the petitioner was called to appear for a medical examination at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on 27-05-2025, where he was declared unfit for appointment, as his disability was assessed at only 1% in a report dated 30-05-2025.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed before the Appellate Disability Medical Board at the Army Hospital, Delhi. After the petitioner underwent a detailed medical examination for five days, the results were not communicated to him. Even after writing an email requesting information regarding the exam results, he did not receive any response. However, by an email dated 05-08-2025, the petitioner was directed to appear in Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, for a third medical exam.
Thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and contended that there was no procedure by which he could have been subjected to yet another medical exam. While the Tribunal directed the petitioner to appear for the said exam, it also directed the respondents to allow him to join the training program and to upload the report of the Appellate Medical Board.
Aggrieved by this direction, the petitioner appeared before this Court.
The petitioner submitted that since the report of the Appellate Medical Board was final, he could not be subjected to another medical exam, which would contravene the Rules and advertisement of the respondents.
The respondents submitted that there were inconsistencies in the report of the experts at AIIMS, whereby the petitioner’s disability was assessed at 1%, as well as in the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board, which assessed his disability at 67.84%.
The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Medical Board’s finding was to be considered final and, as per the Civil Services Examination Rules, the same could not be challenged. However, noting the inconsistencies in the two reports, the Court found no error in the Tribunal’s direction that the petitioner should appear for another medical examination. The Court stated that it was not just a difference in medical opinion but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude. The Court noted that the medical certificates relied upon by the petitioner had also assessed his disability as 40% and 44%.
The Court found itself inclined to adopt the process adopted by the Supreme Court in Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod [SLP(C) No. 17995/2025] and directed that the third exam be conducted by a board of doctors having specialisation in the field of assessing hearing disability. It further directed that one member would be nominated by the Director of AIIMS, one by the Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme, and one by the Chief of Army Research and Referral Hospital.
The Court also asked the Director/DG/Chief not to nominate doctors who had already examined the petitioner. The said board is to be constituted within two weeks, and the Medical Board is required to give its final opinion within one week of the examination.
Thereafter, the Court noted that the petitioner had not been allowed to join the training program and that the report of the Appellate Medical Board had also not been uploaded as directed. It was stated that this Court had earlier only stayed the Tribunal’s direction to the petitioner to appear for the third exam, and that the remaining directions were to be complied with.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak
For Respondents – Mr. Siddharatha Shankar Ray, Ms. Khushi Ramuka, Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Ms. Vasu Agarwal
