Selection Board Medical Findings Prevail Over Private Certificates in Disciplined Force Recruitments Absent Mala Fides

The applicant participated in the recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector in CAPFs/Delhi Police and ASI in CISF Examination, 2016

After qualifying the written examinations and Physical Endurance Test, she underwent a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 04.05.2017, where she was declared unfit due to "decreased distant vision" and being "overweight"

She appealed the finding and underwent a Review Medical Examination (RME) on 20.07.2017, which reaffirmed her unfitness on the same grounds

The applicant challenged these reports, relying on medical certificates from Government hospitals (DDU Hospital and AIIMS) which stated her vision was 6/6 and her weight was within limits

She sought a direction for an independent medical board

1. Whether the findings of the duly constituted DME and RME boards can be set aside based on contrary medical certificates obtained from external Government hospitals

2. Whether the applicant's case warranted the constitution of an independent medical board for re-examination

The opinion of a specialized Medical Board in recruitment for disciplined forces deserves great deference and is final unless vitiated by mala fides or patent arbitrariness

Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar (2026), which established that public employment requires strict adherence to notified conditions/standards and that sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override prescribed recruitment criteria

Recruitment standards are specific to the post and differ from routine clinical examinations

The Tribunal reasoned that the RME was conducted by a specialized board and reaffirmed the DME findings, providing no evidence of procedural irregularity or mala fides

It held that external medical certificates cannot override the findings of recruitment boards because such doctors may not be aware of the specific notified standards required for disciplined forces

Regarding the request for an independent board, the Tribunal observed that such a course is only permissible in cases of manifest inconsistency or error; here, the DME and RME were consistent

The Tribunal emphasized that allowing repeated re-evaluations would undermine the finality of the selection process and that maintaining uniform medical standards is in the larger public interest

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, affirming that the findings of the recruitment medical boards are final and consistent with the prescribed standards for CAPFs/Delhi Police

No costs were awarded