Judicial review cannot displace concurrent findings of expert and Review Medical Boards absent legal infirmity.

The petitioner applied for appointment as a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces pursuant to the SSC recruitment process.

He qualified in the written examination, Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test, but was declared medically unfit during the initial medical examination on the ground of insufficient dental points, namely, possession of only 27 teeth.

The petitioner asserted that an X-ray showed 28 teeth and relied upon an examination conducted at a government hospital to contend that the defect was minor and ignorable.

The petitioner challenged his non-selection before the Patna High Court.

The respondents stated that the petitioner had secured only 13 dental points, whereas at least 14 points were required.

Upon the petitioner’s objection, a Review Medical Board re-examined him and also declared him medically unfit on account of insufficient dental points.

The respondents further maintained that the medical standards were necessary because CAPF personnel may be deployed in extreme climatic and operational conditions.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review, could interfere with the findings of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner medically unfit for appointment in the CAPF?

Whether the petitioner’s contrary dental assessment and X-ray report justified setting aside the findings of the specialised Medical Board and directing his appointment or fresh medical examination?

Judicial review does not ordinarily permit the High Court to act as an appellate authority over the expert assessment of a specialised Medical Board, particularly regarding physical and medical standards prescribed for para-military service.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 1789 of 2012, the Court held that the opinion of an Expert Medical Board should not be disregarded merely because another doctor has expressed a contrary view.

Veer Pal Singh v. Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83, establishes that expert opinion deserves respect, though not worship, and remains subject to judicial review where the decision is legally unsustainable.

Union of India v. Manjeet Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 275, was relied upon for the principle that an expert medical decision may be invalidated if it is inchoate, casual, perfunctory or vague.

The Court distinguished Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 2652, which concerned an erroneous answer key in a written examination and was held inapplicable to medical assessment.

The Court found that both the original Medical Board and the Review Medical Board had independently concluded that the petitioner possessed only 13 dental points, below the prescribed minimum of 14.

Since the Review Medical Board had also confirmed the petitioner’s unfitness, the matter did not involve reliance solely on an isolated or unverified medical opinion.

The Court held that the petitioner’s contrary report from a government or civil doctor could not displace the assessment of doctors familiar with the medical standards and service requirements of the CAPF, including deployment in extreme weather, difficult terrain and demanding operational conditions.

There was no allegation of bias or mala fides against either Medical Board, and the findings were not shown to be casual, perfunctory, vague or legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, judicial review could not be used to substitute the Court’s assessment, or that of another doctor, for the specialised medical determination.

It held that the findings of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board declaring him medically unfit could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on the basis of a contrary medical opinion or X-ray report.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed, and no direction for appointment or further medical examination was granted.