Medical fitness for technical posts must be determined by an independent medical board based on specific job parameters.

The applicant, Vishal Kumar, was selected for the post of Engineering Assistant in Prasar Bharati following a 2013 Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examination

During the medical examination process, a Standing Medical Board initially opined that the applicant had low-grade colour vision but considered him "fit" as the post was not concerned with public safety

Prasar Bharati contested this, asserting that colour vision is essential for technical television roles

Subsequently, a letter from the Standing Medical Board of LHMC & SK Hospital dated 20.10.2015 certified the applicant as "medically unfit"

Consequently, the respondents issued impugned orders on 29.09.2015 and 06.11.2015 rejecting his candidature and denying an offer of appointment

The applicant challenged these orders, alleging they contradicted superior medical opinions and prioritized administrative views over medical experts

1. Whether the respondents’ action in rejecting the applicant's candidature based on medical unfitness was legal and valid given the conflicting medical opinions

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a re-examination by an independent Medical Board to determine his fitness for technical posts in Prasar Bharati

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate disputes regarding recruitment and conditions of service

The principle of administrative fairness and the necessity of objective medical assessment, emphasizing that medical fitness must be determined strictly according to the specific "medical parameters prescribed for the post in question" rather than ambiguous or conflicting reports

The Tribunal observed significant ambiguity in the medical records, noting a discrepancy between the original reports and certified copies, which contained "glaring differences"

While the respondents argued that the technical nature of the post rendered an candidate with low vision unfit, the applicant highlighted that an earlier board member had found him fit for roles not involving public safety

The Tribunal reasoned that since the candidate had not been declared fit or unfit in "unambiguous terms" and because the nature of the job’s dependence on colour vision was a point of contention, a fresh, objective evaluation was necessary

The court determined that the most equitable resolution was to bypass the existing conflicting documents and mandate a new examination by an independent specialist

The Board is tasked with determining if the applicant meets the specific medical parameters required for the posts of Engineering Assistant, Technician, Transmission Executive, or Programme Executive

The respondents are ordered to pass a consequential order based on this new report within two months of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made