Civil Services - Disability Quota- Formation of Independent Expert Medical Board in case of conflicting opinions
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13162/2025 & CM APPL. 53924/2025
Case Title: Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors
Date of Decision: October 6, 2025
Citation: 2025:DHC:8847-DB
Summary & Brief Background
The petitioner participated in the Civil Services Examination 2024 under the Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) category, claiming a permanent hearing impairment exceeding the 40% benchmark
Aggrieved by this assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory Appellate Disability Medical Board constituted at the Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi
Instead of acting upon the Appellate Board's findings, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued an email directive on August 5, 2025, ordering the petitioner to report to Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (SSKH), Lady Hardinge Medical College, for a third medical evaluation
Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction
The Finality of Appellate Checks: The petitioner contended that under the established Civil Services Examination Rules, the assessment rendered by the statutory Appellate Disability Medical Board is final and binding
. He argued that the state cannot systematically override the definitive findings of specialized appellate boards to demand endless cycles of examination based on administrative whims . Furthermore, the petitioner distinguished his case from the Supreme Court precedent in Kore Nihal Pramod, explaining that the Apex Court had ordered a neutral panel only because of a direct contradiction where an appellate board had declared a candidate unfit but a subsequent High Court-ordered evaluation declared them fit . The Variance of High Magnitude: The respondents defended the third test order by exposing a massive contradiction between the two state-run medical evaluations
. They highlighted that the initial AIIMS board recorded a negligible 1% impairment layout, while the Army Hospital (R&R) panel calculated a severe 67.84% hearing disability . The state argued that this massive mathematical variance rendered a clarifying, independent third assessment essential to make a final recruitment decision .
Key Issues Addressed
- Whether an appointing authority can legally subject a PwBD candidate to a third medical examination when there is a massive conflict between the initial medical board and the statutory appellate board.
- What legal weight and finality must be ascribed to an Appellate Disability Medical Board's report when its findings conflict extensively with initial assessments
.
Observations & Findings of the Court
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, moulding the relief to balance the structural rules of recruitment with fair medical verification
The Reality of a Significant Disparity: The Court recognized that while an Appellate Medical Board's findings are structurally designed to act as final and non-challengeable under standard conditions, the specific numerical indices in this case revealed a stark institutional anomaly
. Validation of the Magnitude: The Bench observed that the conflict did not represent a routine, minor variation in medical interpretation, but rather a structural contradiction of exceptional proportions
: "It is not a matter of just difference in medical opinion, but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude."
Contextualizing Prior Assessments: The Court noted that earlier medical certificates submitted by the petitioner had independently pegged his permanent hearing disability at 40% and 44%
. This made the initial AIIMS finding of 1% and the subsequent appellate finding of 67.84% highly inconsistent, justifying an independent tie-breaker review layout . The Balanced Apex Court Model Adopted: Rather than permitting the DoPT to unilaterally select a single local hospital for the third evaluation, the High Court invoked the equitable process mapped out by the Supreme Court in Kore Nihal Pramod
. The Bench held that the evaluation must be performed by a jointly constituted, high-level composite independent board to ensure strict transparency .
Directions Issued
To resolve the impasse and eliminate institutional biases, the High Court issued the following time-bound operational directions:
The petitioner’s third medical evaluation layout was modified
. The Court ordered the constitution of a fresh, specialized three-member Expert Medical Board specifically tracking hearing disabilities . The Board will consist of three independent experts: one doctor nominated by the Director of AIIMS, one nominated by the Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), and one nominated by the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi
. To preserve absolute neutrality, the Court directed that the respective medical chiefs must not nominate any individual doctors who have previously examined the petitioner in the earlier rounds
. The respective institutions are requested to formally constitute the specialized board within two weeks, and the Board must deliver its final binding opinion regarding eligibility within one week of conducting the examination
. Clarification on Training Guidelines: The Bench noted the petitioner's complaint that the state had failed to comply with CAT’s interim order allowing him to join the training program
. The High Court clarified that its own ad-interim order passed on August 28, 2025, had strictly stayed only the third medical test directive, meaning the remaining parts of the Tribunal's training guidelines remained fully operational and subject to active enforcement before the CAT .
Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.