Medical Board’s disability assessment prevails over a contrary Civil Surgeon’s certificate.

The petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse pursuant to Advertisement No. 23/2025 under the visually handicapped (VH-78) category and claimed to have qualified the written examination and document verification.

He was not included in the final selection list because the medical assessment conducted at IGIMS, Patna, reportedly found his visual disability to be below the prescribed threshold of 40 per cent, making him ineligible for the reserved category benefit.

The petitioner relied on a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital Campus, Biharsharif, Nalanda, which allegedly opined that he was fit for joining.

The Bihar Technical Service Commission stated that the petitioner, along with other candidates in the category, had been examined by experts at IGIMS and that the decision was based on the IGIMS report.

IGIMS clarified that the assessment was made by a duly constituted Medical Board and not by an individual doctor.

The petitioner sought a fresh medical examination, disclosure of the medical report, quashing of his exclusion, and appointment against the reserved vacancies.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh medical examination or a second opinion in view of the conflicting reports issued by the Civil Surgeon and the IGIMS Medical Board?

Whether the petitioner’s exclusion from the final select list and denial of the VH-category benefit was arbitrary or liable to be quashed?

Whether the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon could prevail over the report of the Medical Board constituted by IGIMS?

where competing medical assessments exist, the report of a duly constituted expert Medical Board is to be preferred over a certificate issued by an individual medical authority, particularly where the Medical Board was constituted by the designated specialist institution for the purpose of assessing the relevant disability

a disability below 40 per cent did not entitle a candidate to the benefit of the VH reserved category

The Court found that the record contained two conflicting medical documents: the Civil Surgeon’s certificate and the report of the IGIMS Medical Board.

Since the IGIMS assessment had been conducted by a duly constituted Medical Board and the Commission stated that similarly situated candidates had also undergone examination at IGIMS, the Court treated that report as the authoritative medical assessment.

Consequently, the petitioner’s reliance on the Civil Surgeon’s certificate did not establish that his exclusion was arbitrary, nor did it justify directing a fresh examination or second opinion.

As the IGIMS assessment found the petitioner’s disability to be below the qualifying threshold for the VH category, he was not entitled to the reserved-category benefit or appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 23/2025.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no relief for a fresh medical examination, disclosure-based challenge, quashing of the exclusion, or appointment was granted.