Recruitment authorities cannot deny re-medical examination to candidates after granting it to similarly situated candidates.

The petitions arose from the Delhi Police recruitment process for Constable (Executive), Male and Female, conducted pursuant to the notification dated 1 September 2023.

Beena Waskle cleared the written examination and physical tests but was declared medically unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination on account of a tattoo on the right forearm.

Yogiraj, who likewise cleared the written examination and physical tests, was declared unfit in both medical examinations on account of right inguinal hernia.

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that both candidates be subjected to re-medical examination by duly constituted Medical Boards, including relevant specialists.

During the pendency of the writ petitions, the petitioners admitted that 33 out of 35 similarly situated candidates had undergone re-medical examination and were subsequently appointed.

The Commissioner of Police did not file the personal affidavit directed by the Court to disclose the relevant facts.

Whether the respondents could be denied re-medical examination when 33 similarly situated candidates from the same recruitment process had been granted that opportunity and were thereafter appointed?

Whether the Court was required to adjudicate the petitioners’ objections concerning the validity of the original medical examinations and the interpretation of the prescribed medical standards before granting relief?

The Court applied the principle of parity and equal treatment in administrative decision-making, holding that similarly situated candidates should not be treated differently without a disclosed and rational justification.

It considered the medical standards prescribed under the recruitment notification dated 1 September 2023, the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and the Standing Order dated 8 June 2022 as the governing norms for any re-medical examination and subsequent decision.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that an adverse inference may follow where a party fails to disclose facts despite a specific judicial direction, particularly when the relevant position is admitted through counsel.

The Court did not disturb the general principle that judicial review of opinions rendered by duly constituted Medical Boards is limited, nor did it invalidate the recruitment standards or the original medical reports.

The Court held that the petitioners’ subsequent conduct materially altered the controversy.

Although the petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s direction on the basis that the original and review medical examinations were final, they had themselves permitted re-medical examination of 33 similarly situated candidates and granted appointments to those candidates thereafter.

In the absence of any justification for placing Beena Waskle and Yogiraj on a different footing, denying them the same opportunity would be inconsistent with parity and equal treatment.

The failure to file the directed personal affidavit, coupled with the admission made by counsel, further justified an adverse inference regarding the complete factual position.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide whether the original medical findings were erroneous or whether the prescribed standards had been correctly interpreted, since the relief could be granted solely to maintain parity.

The petitioners were directed to permit Beena Waskle and Yogiraj to undergo re-medical examination by duly constituted Medical Boards, in accordance with the applicable recruitment norms and in the same manner as the 33 similarly situated candidates.

The result of the re-medical examination was to be considered by the competent authority under the applicable Rules, recruitment notification, and medical standards.

The Court clarified that the direction did not declare the original medical reports or prescribed standards invalid.

Pending applications were also disposed of.