Independent medical re-examination may be ordered for compassionate appointments involving conflicting medical assessment reports.

The applicant’s father, a Constable in the Delhi Police, died in service on 20.12.2026

The applicant applied for a compassionate appointment and was found fit by the Screening Committee on 05.09.2024, subject to medical formalities

On 10.01.2025, a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) declared the applicant unfit due to a tattoo on the right forearm, a hesitation cut mark, and defective distant vision

A subsequent Review Medical Examination (RME) on 23.04.2025 confirmed unfitness based on the tattoo and vision defects

independent medical examinations conducted at AIIMS, New Delhi, and PGIMER, Chandigarh, on 15.07.2025, recorded the applicant’s vision as perfect (6/6)

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) to quash the DME and RME findings and sought a fresh examination by an independent medical board

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a fresh medical examination by an independent board of specialists in light of conflicting medical reports from premier government institutions

2. Whether the specific circumstances of a compassionate appointment justify an exception to the standard finality of Review Medical Examinations (RME)

The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s directions in WP (C) No. 12891/2024 and Staff Selection Commission v. Deepak Yadav, which established that the visibility and significance of a tattoo should be assessed by a specialist (Dermatologist) to determine its impact on candidacy

The respondents relied on the principle from WP (C) No. 14088/2024, which cautions against judicial interference in the medical recruitment process once both DME and RME have concluded, to avoid delaying public recruitment

The Tribunal noted the significant disparity between the findings of the RME and those of AIIMS and PGIMER regarding the applicant’s distant vision

the Tribunal distinguished this case based on its nature as a compassionate appointment rather than a general public advertisement

The Tribunal reasoned that the existence of contrary findings by prestigious medical institutions necessitated a transparent and fair reassessment

Upon the Tribunal’s query, the respondents conceded to a fresh examination specifically because it was a compassionate case, provided it was not treated as a precedent for regular recruitment

The Tribunal concluded that a board comprising a General Specialist, Dermatologist, and Ophthalmologist was necessary to resolve the technical disputes regarding the tattoo and vision

The Board is required to submit a report on the applicant's tattoo and vision within 8 weeks. The Tribunal further ordered the respondents to keep one post under the compassionate quota vacant until a final decision is made based on the medical report, which must be finalized within four weeks of the report's receipt.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the medical findings.