Documentary evidence of age prevails over physical appearance and inconclusive medical opinions in public recruitment.

The applicant was selected for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) through the SSC MTS Examination-2016.

Despite successful document verification and a matriculation certificate stating his date of birth as 07.02.1994, the respondents withheld his appointment.

The respondents contended that the applicant’s dossier was flagged for signature mismatch and doubts regarding his age.

Specifically, a medical examination at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital estimated his physical appearance to be around 36 years, exceeding the recruitment rule limit of 18–25 years.

The applicant challenged the inordinate delay and the use of "physical appearance" as a ground to override documentary evidence.

1. Whether a medical opinion based on physical appearance can be the sole ground to reject a candidate's selection by declaring them overage despite documentary evidence to the contrary?

The court relied on the principle that the primary evidence for age determination is the matriculation certificate or birth certificate from a municipal authority.

It applied the "Margin of Error" principle and the "Best Interest" doctrine from Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

These precedents establish that medical age determination (ossification tests) is advisory, not binding, and cannot override reliable documentary evidence or "ocular" facts.

The court further noted the Maxim Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not demand the impossible), holding that ossification tests become less reliable as a person ages (typically after 30 years).

The Tribunal observed that the respondents acted arbitrarily by ignoring the applicant’s matriculation certificate—standardly considered conclusive proof of age—in favor of a subjective assessment of physical appearance.

The court reasoned that age determination is a matter of "Perception over Reality" and requires a rigorous, rather than "casual or cavalier," approach.

By citing Vinod Katara, the Tribunal highlighted that ossification tests have a margin of error of two years and are not an exact science, especially when the subject is older, making the respondents' reliance on a 36-year-old "appearance" estimate legally fragile.

The court emphasized that the respondents failed to independently verify the authenticity of the applicant’s certificates before resorting to medical conjecture.

The respondents were directed to: (i) conduct a formal ossification test at Safdarjung Hospital via a board of three doctors within one month; and (ii) simultaneously verify the authenticity of the applicant's matriculation and document records.

If the documents are found genuine, the medical test results may be dispensed with.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant be offered appointment if verified, with benefits limited to notional seniority, to be completed within three months.