Ambiguous medical findings lacking definitive fitness opinions warrant re-examination by the Review Medical Board.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the CAPFs and other services pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.09.2024. He successfully cleared the Computer Based Test and Physical Efficiency/Standard Tests

However, during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), he was declared unfit due to "(i) Left Shoulder lower than right and (ii) Left shoulder griddle asymmetry"

He was subsequently referred to Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH), which noted a "Right Scapula at higher level" but found "muscle power normal" and an X-ray report showing normal bony outlines and joint spaces

Despite these findings, the Review Medical Examination (RME) sustained the DME's rejection. The petitioner challenged the lack of a definitive fitness conclusion by SMCH despite seemingly normal X-ray results

1. Whether the rejection by the RME was sustainable given the absence of a definitive fitness opinion from the specialist referral hospital (SMCH) despite normal radiological findings

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh medical re-examination by the Review Medical Board considering the existing medical records

The Court applied the principles of judicial review over administrative/medical board decisions in recruitment, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in medical opinions when a candidate’s clinical findings (normal X-ray and muscle power) appear to conflict with a declaration of "unfit"

The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that the recruitment process is fair and that medical assessments are comprehensive and conclusive

The Court observed a discrepancy between the clinical findings and the final rejection. While the DME and RME found the petitioner unfit due to shoulder asymmetry, the specialist referral at SMCH provided an X-ray report indicating that bony outlines, density, and joint spaces appeared normal

The Court noted that SMCH failed to render a categorical opinion on whether these anatomical variations actually rendered the petitioner "unfit" for employment under the CAPF

Because the X-ray report did not reflect any functional infirmity or pathology, the Court reasoned that the petitioner deserved a renewed consideration where the medical board must specifically reconcile the normal radiological and muscle power findings with the physical asymmetry

The Court directed the Review Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner within 60 days of receipt of the representation, taking into account all previous medical records and the SMCH Orthopedic Department report. The Court held that if the petitioner is found suitable upon re-examination, consequential orders for selection and appointment must be issued