Medical fitness standards for disciplined forces cannot be waived for compassionate appointments despite external medical opinions.

The applicant, whose father was a deceased Delhi Police official, sought appointment as a Constable (Executive) on compassionate grounds

His application was approved by the Screening Committee on March 6, 2025

During the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), he was declared unfit due to "defective distance vision" (6/18) and a "squat" (squint)

A Review Medical Examination (RME) subsequently negated the finding of a squint but confirmed unfitness based on worsened defective vision (6/24)

The applicant challenged these findings, producing medical certificates from Safdarjung Hospital certifying his vision as 6/6 and alleging that the RME lacked an eye specialist

Consequently, he filed this O.A. to quash the rejection order dated December 1, 2025, and sought a fresh independent medical board

1. Whether the variation in visual acuity findings between the DME (6/18) and RME (6/24) renders the medical board's decision arbitrary or invalid

2. Whether independent medical certificates from an external government hospital can override the findings of specialized recruitment medical boards

3. Whether the standards of medical fitness can be relaxed or diluted in cases of compassionate appointment

The Tribunal applied the recruitment standards prescribed under the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, specifically Rule 9(v) regarding vision standards and Rule 5 regarding relaxations

It relied heavily on the judicial principle established in SSC Ors. vs. Brij Kishore Meena [W.P. (C) No. 13976/2024], affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4144/2025, which holds that where there is a concurrence of unfitness between the DME and RME regarding vision, minor variations in the degree of impairment do not warrant judicial interference

The court further applied the principle that external medical opinions cannot substitute the specialized findings of designated recruitment boards

The Tribunal reasoned that despite minor discrepancies in the degree of visual impairment recorded (6/18 vs. 6/24) and the disagreement over the presence of a squint, both medical boards consistently concluded that the applicant failed to meet the mandatory distance vision standards

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's reliance on Safdarjung Hospital certificates, noting that recruitment boards are specialized bodies whose evaluations are tailored to the specific rigors of the service and cannot be superseded by external practitioners

the Bench clarified that while compassionate appointment is a beneficial scheme, it does not exempt a candidate from meeting the essential medical fitness criteria required for a disciplined force like the Delhi Police

Applying the ratio in Brij Kishore Meena, the court found that since the outcome of "unfit" remained consistent across both internal examinations, there was no procedural irregularity or mala fide action requiring intervention

It answered the issues by affirming that variation in visual measurements does not invalidate the overall finding of unfitness

The O.A. was dismissed, and the prayer for an independent medical board and appointment was rejected. No order as to costs was made