Contrary specialist medical opinions establish possible error of judgment, requiring re-examination under SR-4(1).

CSIR issued an advertisement dated 23 March 2016 for posts of Scientist/Senior Scientist. Dr. Sandeep Goyal applied for the post of Senior Scientist, was screened and selected after interview, and was thereafter required to undergo medical examination as part of the appointment process.

A CSIR Medical Board examined him and declared him medically unfit on 10 July 2019 on the ground of “Portal Hypertension with Esophageal Varices requiring lifelong follow-up.” His representation for reconsideration was rejected on 16 August 2019.

Subsequently, he obtained medical opinions from three specialists, all of whom opined that he was medically fit for appointment as Senior Scientist.

He placed these reports before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed CSIR to constitute a fresh Medical Board and, if he was found fit, to appoint him within three months.

CSIR challenged that order before the High Court, principally contending that the conditions under Clause (c) of Government Order SR-4(1) had not been satisfied.

1. Whether the contrary medical opinions produced by the respondent established a possible error of judgment by the original CSIR Medical Board so as to entitle him to re-examination by a second Medical Board under Clause (b) of Government Order SR-4(1).

2. Whether the medical certificates were liable to be disregarded under Clause (c) of Government Order SR-4(1) because they did not adequately disclose the respondent’s earlier adverse medical finding.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s direction for constitution of a fresh Medical Board and consequential consideration for appointment warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Government of India Order SR-4(1) concerning the right of appeal against adverse medical findings. Under Clause (a), the broad grounds of medical rejection are to be communicated to the candidate; under Clause (b), although there is ordinarily no right of appeal against a medical opinion, re-examination by a second Medical Board may be permitted where the evidence indicates a possible error of judgment by the original Medical Board.

Clause (c) provides that an alternative medical certificate should not be considered unless the issuing medical practitioner records that it was given with knowledge of the candidate’s earlier rejection as medically unfit.

The Court further held that a contrary opinion from a specialist may, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence of a possible error of judgment requiring re-medical examination.

Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to examining whether the Tribunal’s direction disclosed legal or jurisdictional infirmity.

The Court found that the three specialist reports materially contradicted the CSIR Medical Board’s conclusion: they recorded the respondent’s prior treatment, normal shunt flow, normal FibroScan and liver-function results, and opined that he was fit for the post of Senior Scientist.

This constituted substantial evidence suggesting a possible error of judgment under Clause (b), thereby requiring consideration of re-examination by a second Medical Board.

Regarding Clause (c), the Court held that all three reports specifically stated that the respondent was fit for appointment as Senior Scientist, indicating that the specialists had been informed of the relevant purpose and circumstances of the examination.

In any event, the Court held that the overwhelming contrary medical material should have been placed before the competent authority and could not be rejected on a technical reading of Clause (c) without affording a fresh medical examination.

The Tribunal had therefore correctly directed re-examination, without itself conclusively declaring the respondent medically fit.

It upheld the Tribunal’s direction to constitute a fresh Medical Board.

The Court clarified that only if the respondent was found medically fit upon re-examination would CSIR be required to offer him appointment in accordance with the Tribunal’s order.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.