Staff Selection Commission vs Mandeep - Delhi High Court

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court | Negatively Viewed by Court |
| No clear sentiment | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Staff Selection Commission And Anr vs Mandeep on 19 March, 2026

$~95 and 99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 1624/2025 and CM APPL. 7908/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC
with Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Mr.
Vinayak Aren & Ms.
Aishwarya Nigam, Advs.
versus

                     MANDEEP                                             .....Respondent
                                         Through:        None.

              +      W.P.(C) 4731/2025
                     STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. .....Petitioners
                                      Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with
                                               Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev
                                               Pratap Shahi, Mr.Varun Pratap
                                               Singh & Mr. Yogya Bhatia
                                               Advs.
                                      versus

                     AMIT KUMAR                                          .....Respondent
                                         Through:        None.

                     CORAM:
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                    J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. These Writ Petitions arise out of the same recruitment process, namely, recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive), Male/Female, in Delhi Police Examination, 2023, and assail Orders

W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter

16:28:55
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi directing that the respective Respondents be
subjected to a fresh medical examination before an appropriate
Medical Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals
which had conducted the Detailed Medical Examination and the
Review Medical Examination.

1. Since the petitions arise from the same advertisement, concern
   

   the same post and recruitment framework, involve disqualification on
   the ground of the same medical ground, and raise a common question
   touching the permissible scope of judicial interference with concurrent
   medical opinions rendered within the recruitment process, they were
   heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first petition, W.P.(C) 1624/2025, has been instituted by the
   

   Staff Selection Commission and the Delhi Police assailing the order
   dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.
   3144/2024 titled Mandeep v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. The second petition i.e. W.P.(C) 4731/2025 challenges the order dated
   20.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3234/2024
   titled Amit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission &Anr. In both
   matters, the learned Tribunal directed a fresh medical examination and
   further directed that, in the event of the candidate being found
   medically fit and otherwise eligible, appointment be extended with
   consequential benefits on a notional basis.

3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.(C) 1624/2025 (Mandeep) are
   

   noticed first, followed by the facts in the petition concerning Amit

W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter

16:28:55
Kumar. The common issue of law and the submissions are thereafter
proposed to be considered together.
FACTS IN W.P.(C) 1624/2025

              (Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Mandeep)

1. The present Petition assails the order dated 09.08.2024 passed
             by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
             Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"] in O.A. No.
             3144/2024, titled [Mandeep v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. By](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73949950/) the said order, the learned Tribunal directed the Petitioners to subject
             the Respondent to a fresh medical examination before an appropriate
             Medical Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals
             which had conducted the Detailed Medical Examination and the
             Review Medical Examination. It was further directed that, in the event
             of the Respondent being found medically fit and otherwise eligible,
             appropriate consequential benefits be extended on a notional basis.
   

2. Recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive), Male and
             Female, in Delhi Police Examination, 2023 was undertaken under the
             applicable recruitment framework, including the Delhi Police
             (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, the relevant Standing
             Order dated 08.06.2022, and the notice of examination issued by the
             Staff Selection Commission. The notification for recruitment was
             issued on 01.09.2023 and online applications were accepted up to
             30.09.2023. The Respondent participated in the said recruitment
             process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male. The Staff
             Selection Commission conducted the Computer-Based Examination
             on a pan-India basis from 14.11.2023 to 03.12.2023, and declared the
   
               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
result on 31.12.2023. The candidates who qualified were thereafter
subjected to the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test
(PE&MT), which was conducted by Delhi Police.

1. The Petitioners state that, in order to complete the medical
             examination process in a time-bound manner, the Ministry of Home
             Affairs decided on 16.01.2024 that the medical examination of
             PE&MT-qualified candidates would be conducted through CAPF
             hospitals, and sufficient Medical Boards were accordingly constituted
             at designated centres in Delhi and NCR. The Respondent, having
             qualified the earlier stages of selection, was thereafter subjected to
             medical examination in accordance with the recruitment process so
             structured.
   

2. The Respondent underwent Detailed Medical Examination on
             19.01.2024 [hereinafter referred to as DME], where he was declared
             medically     unfit.   At     his     instance,   a   Review     Medical
             Examination[hereinafter referred to as RME] was thereafter conducted
             on 29.01.2024, in which the opinion of unfitness was maintained. As
             recorded by the learned Tribunal, the medical disqualification in the
             Review Medical Examination was on account of "Isolated Systolic
             Hypertension". The DME had noted hypertension and another
             condition, though the disqualification ultimately retained in the RME
             continued to rest on the hypertension-related finding.
   

3. Consequent      upon    the    aforesaid   medical   opinion,   no
             appointment came to be issued in favour of the Respondent. The
             Respondent, however, obtained a subsequent medical opinion from a
             Government hospital, which, according to him, did not support the
   
               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
finding recorded by the medical boards constituted within the
recruitment process.

1. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent approached the learned
   Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3144/2024, seeking, in substance, setting
   aside of the review medical report dated 29.01.2024, a direction for
   further consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of
   Constable (Exe.) (Male), and, if necessary, a direction for re-medical
   examination at a Government hospital of repute.

2. The Petitioners herein opposed the Original Application and
   specifically contended before the learned Tribunal that there exists no
   provision for any further medical re-examination after the Medical
   Board and the Review Medical Board; that intervention would amount
   to sitting in appeal over expert opinion; that the applicant had already
   been medically examined twice; and that, in the absence of mala fides
   or bias, no interference was warranted, particularly having regard to
   the stringent selection process and the nature of duties in Delhi Police.

3. The learned Tribunal, with the consent of the parties, proceeded
   to decide the Original Application at the admission stage. It observed
   that, in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had decided O.A.
   No. 594/2024 titled "Ravina v. SSC and Ors." on 11.03.2024.
   Proceeding on the basis that it could not take a divergent view, the
   learned Tribunal directed the Petitioners to conduct a fresh medical
   examination of the Respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical
   Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals which had
   already conducted the DME and the RME.

W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter

16:28:55

1. It further directed that appropriate orders with respect to the
   Respondent's candidature be passed on the basis of the outcome of
   such fresh examination, and that, in the event of the respondent being
   found medically fit and otherwise meeting the requisite criteria, he be
   granted appointment with consequential benefits on a notional basis.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the Petitioners have
   approached this Court.

FACTS IN [W.P.(C) No. 4731/2025]

              ([Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Amit Kumar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12825385/))

1. The present Petition assails the order dated 20.08.2024
   [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"] passed by the
   learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3234/2024, titled Amit Kumar v. Staff
   Selection Commission & Anr. By the Impugned Order, the learned
   Tribunal similarly directed the Petitioners to conduct a fresh medical
   examination of the Respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical
   Board in a Government hospital other than the hospitals which had
   conducted the DME and the RME, and further directed that, in the
   event of the respondent being found medically fit and subject to his
   meeting the other criteria, he be appointed forthwith with
   consequential benefits on a notional basis.

2. Mr. Amit Kumar (Respondent herein), too, was a candidate in
   the same recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive)
   Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2023. The recruitment framework,
   timeline, and process are the same. The Ministry of Home Affairs, on
   16.01.2024, directed constitution of Medical Boards for conducting

               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
DME and RME of candidates for the said recruitment, and the medical
examination of all such candidates was decided to be conducted
through CAPF hospitals.

1. In pursuance thereof, Medical Boards were constituted at four
   centres, including Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New
   Delhi. The Respondent, Amit Kumar, reported at the said hospital for
   his Detailed Medical Examination on 21.01.2024, where he was
   declared medically unfit on account of "Hypertension". Thereafter, the
   Review Medical Examination Board, considering the report of the
   DME as well, again declared him medically unfit on account of
   "Hypertension".

2. Consequent upon the RME, no offer of appointment came to be
   issued in favour of the Respondent. He thereafter got himself
   medically examined at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Hospital, where he
   was allegedly declared fit, and relied upon the said report before the
   learned Tribunal. The Petitioners' case is that the said opinion,
   obtained dehors the recruitment process, could not displace the
   findings recorded by the duly constituted Medical Boards within the
   recruitment process.

3. The Respondent consequently instituted O.A. No. 3234/2024
   before the learned Tribunal, praying for quashing of the impugned
   medical report, for further consideration of his candidature for
   appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in accordance with
   merit, and, if need be, for subjecting him to re-medical examination at
   any Government hospital of high repute. The learned Tribunal
   recorded the Applicant's submission that the subsequent Government

               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
hospital report had cleared him of the medical condition recorded by
the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board.

1. The learned Tribunal, hearing the matter at the admission stage,
   noted that in several decisions involving similar circumstances and the
   same condition, namely hypertension, the Tribunal disposed of the
   Original Applications by directing fresh medical examination through
   an independent Medical Board. The learned Tribunal observed that it
   could not take a divergent view in the matter. On that basis, the
   learned Tribunal directed a fresh medical examination of the
   respondent by constituting an appropriate Medical Board in a
   Government hospital other than the hospitals which had already
   conducted the initial and the review medical examination, and further
   directed that, in the event of the Respondent being found medically fit
   and meeting the other criteria, he be granted appointment forthwith
   with consequential benefits on a notional basis.

2. It is this order that is assailed by the Petitioners in this Writ
   Petition before this Court.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

1. In the aforesaid backdrop, the common question that arises for
   consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in directing
   a fresh medical examination of the respective Respondents before an
   independent Medical Board in another Government hospital,
   notwithstanding the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review
   Medical Examination having both returned concurrent opinions of
   unfitness on the ground of hypertension-related medical condition, and

               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
in the absence of any finding of mala fides, bias, or demonstrable
violation of the prescribed recruitment framework.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

1. The extent of judicial review in matters arising from medical
   disqualification in recruitment to the police and allied disciplined
   forces is no longer res integra. The controlling principles stand
   explained by this Court in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman
   Singh1, where it was observed that, while judicial review is not wholly
   excluded, the Court does not sit in appeal over the opinion of duly
   constituted Medical Boards. Interference is confined to limited and
   well-defined situations, such as breach of the prescribed procedure,
   patent discrepancy between the findings of the Detailed Medical
   Examination and the Review Medical Examination on the
   disqualifying condition, absence of requisite specialist evaluation
   where the nature of the ailment so requires, disregard of material
   generated within the recruitment process itself, or comparable
   infirmity going to the fairness or integrity of the medical assessment.

2. Equally, the said decision makes it clear that medical opinions
   procured by a candidate independently, whether from a private
   hospital or even from another Government hospital, do not by
   themselves furnish a legitimate basis to direct a fresh medical
   examination. The designated Medical Boards, constituted within the
   recruitment framework, assess fitness not in the abstract, but in the
   specific context of the service and post concerned. In recruitment to a
   disciplined force such as Delhi Police, the assessment necessarily

               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
proceeds on standards calibrated to the nature of the duties attached to
the post.

1. At the same time, Aman Singh (supra) does not postulate an
   inflexible rule that a fresh medical examination can never be directed.
   The law, as explained therein, is more nuanced. Where the record
   discloses a real procedural infirmity, or where the medical process
   itself suffers from a defect of a kind recognized in law, judicial
   intervention may well be warranted. The question, therefore, is not
   whether such a direction is conceptually impermissible, but whether
   the facts of the present cases disclose circumstances of that character.

2. The importance of a case-specific scrutiny is also underscored
   by this Court's decision in Staff Selection Commission v. Ravina
   Meena2, where the order of the learned Tribunal was set aside and the
   matter remanded for fresh consideration precisely because the
   Tribunal had not dealt with the individual facts of that case and had
   instead disposed of the matter in a generalized manner. The legality of
   interference with medical disqualification must turn on the facts of the
   individual candidate and the nature of the infirmity alleged in the
   process.

3. Similarly, Staff Selection Commission v. Amit Goswami3 illustrates the nature of an exceptional case where interference may
   legitimately be sustained. There, the review medical decision itself
   suffered from a foundational procedural defect. That decision,
   therefore, cannot be understood as sanctioning routine directions for

               2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600
   
               2024:DHC:9147-DB
   
               2024 SCC OnLine Del 7985
   
               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
yet another medical examination; it is, on the contrary, an example of
intervention founded upon a demonstrable infirmity in the medical
process itself.

1.  In the present cases, however, no such infirmity is shown to
             exist. The respective Respondents were subjected first to a Detailed
             Medical Examination and thereafter, at their instance, to a Review
             Medical Examination. In both, the opinion of unfitness for the post
             was maintained. The disqualification on account of hypertension
             remained undisturbed and, was retained in the review medical
             examination. In terms of the principles explained in Aman Singh
             (Supra), that does not amount to a discrepancy of the kind which
             would justify judicial interference, for the disqualifying condition
             stood concurrently affirmed.
   

2.  This aspect assumes added significance in light of the decisions
             of this Court in [Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Vineet
             Kumar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82522091/) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Rambabu Verma4. In
             those cases as well, the issue related to medical disqualification on
             account of hypertension/high blood pressure. This Court held that
             where the candidate had been found unfit in the DME and again in the
             RME, and the record disclosed repeated high blood pressure readings
             within the recruitment process itself, a fresh medical examination
             could not be directed merely because the candidate later procured
             medical reports showing normal parameters. The Court also observed
             that such cases could not lightly be treated as mere instances of white-
             coat hypertension, particularly when the designated medical boards
   
                 2024:DHC:9506-DB
   
               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
had recorded the candidate's condition in the course of the prescribed
process.

1. The rationale of the aforesaid decisions applies with equal force
   here. The foundation of the respective Respondents' challenge before
   the learned Tribunal was essentially a subsequent medical opinion
   obtained from another hospital, dehors the recruitment process. That
   circumstance, by itself, could not have displaced the concurrent
   opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review Medical
   Examination, unless the Respondent had first established some legally
   cognizable infirmity in the process undertaken by the designated
   medical boards. No such infirmity was identified.

2. Significantly, the learned Tribunal has recorded that it was not
   examining or commenting upon the merits of the claim. The
   Impugned Orders does not return any finding that the prescribed
   procedure had been breached. It does not record any discrepancy of
   the nature recognised in law. Nor does it find mala fides, bias,
   perversity, or any other procedural irregularity affecting the integrity
   of the medical process. Absent such findings, the direction for a fresh
   medical examination lacks an articulated legal basis.

3. What appears, instead, is that the learned Tribunal considered
   itself bound to adopt the same course as had been adopted by a Co-
   ordinate Bench in Ravina Meena. That approach cannot be sustained.
   Consistency in adjudication is undoubtedly a desirable institutional
   value. But consistency cannot be achieved by dispensing with the
   obligation to examine the facts of the individual case. Where the
   legality of interference with medical disqualification turns upon

               W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter
   

16:28:55
specific features of the process and the record, parity of outcome
cannot substitute for parity of reasoning.

1. Both the Impugned Orders thus suffers from a two-fold
   infirmity. First, it directs a fresh medical examination without first
   identifying any exceptional circumstance recognised by law as
   warranting such interference. Second, it does so while expressly
   declining to examine the merits of the medical determination itself.
   The result is that a substantive direction altering the course of the
   recruitment process came to be issued without a corresponding
   adjudicatory foundation.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners is, therefore, justified in
   contending that the learned Tribunal exceeded the permissible bounds
   of judicial review in matters of expert medical assessment. Once the
   record disclosed concurrent findings of unfitness returned by the duly
   constituted medical boards, the learned Tribunal could not have
   directed a third medical examination merely because the Respondent
   had obtained a subsequent opinion which was favourable to him.

3. This Court is also mindful that the present recruitment pertains
   to Delhi Police. In such recruitments, the standards of medical fitness
   are not to be diluted by abstract notions of equivalence with general
   medical fitness. The question is not whether the candidate is medically
   manageable in ordinary life, but whether he satisfies the standards
   prescribed for appointment to the post. That assessment is one which
   the recruitment framework entrusts in the first instance to the
   designated medical authorities.

W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter

16:28:55

1. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in directing a fresh medical examination of the Respondents. The Impugned Orders cannot, therefore, be sustained.

CONCLUSION

1. Accordingly, the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned
   Tribunal in O.A. No. 3144/2024, Mandeep v. Staff Selection
   Commission & Anr., is set aside.

2. The order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in
   O.A. No. 3234/2024, Amit Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission &
   Anr., is also set aside.

3. The present Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed in the
   aforesaid terms.

4. The pending application, also stands closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MARCH 19, 2026
s.godara/ad

                W.P,(C) 1624/2025 and connected matter

16:28:55