Council For Scientific And Industrial Research New Delhi Thru. Joint Secy.(Administration) & Ors. vs Dr. Sandeep Goyal

Heard Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Original Application No.332/00460 of 2019, wherein the Original Application preferred by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were directed to reconstitute another Medical Board for medical examination of the respondent, taking into consideration the certificates of medical fitness annexed by him with the Original Application, and further directed that if he is found fit on the basis of such medical re-examination, to appoint him to the post of Senior Scientist within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the said order.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that an advertisement was issued on 23.03.2016 seeking applications for appointment to 14 posts of Scientist/Senior Scientist. The respondent, on the basis of the fact that he was fully eligible and qualified, applied for the post of Senior Scientist and submitted his application on 14.04.2016. All the candidates were subjected to a screening process by a committee constituted of experts in the field and the name of the respondent was recommended along with 21 other eligible candidates on 19.09.2018. They were also called for an interview for the said posts and a notification dated 26.09.2018 consisting of selected candidates was published on the official website of CSIR- Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Lucknow. The respondent, by means of letter dated 27.09.2018, was requested to submit the attestation form. Thereafter, the respondent was also subjected to medical fitness examination as well as verification of his character antecedents. It is in pursuance of the letter dated 11.06.2019 that the respondent reported to CSIR, Lucknow on 04.07.2019 and the petitioners were directed to undergo a medical check-up at the CSIR Dispensary, Lucknow. The said medical check-up was conducted on 05.07.2019 and the respondent was referred to CGHS-empanelled hospitals for examination of the eyes and ENT and for medical tests with regards to CBC, Urine RE/ME, B. Sugar, HbA1C, LFT/KFT/Lipid profile, HBsAg, HCV, HIV, T3, T4, TSH, XR-PA view, Resting ECG and USG-Abdomen. On 08.07.2019, the Medical Officer, In-charge, CSIR Dispensary, Lucknow upon examination of the respondent for Gastroenterology, gave his opinion regarding the fitness of the respondent, inasmuch as he had shown signs of FUC Portal Hypertension with Splenectomy. Relying upon the aforesaid medical evidence, the Medical Board, consisting of the Medical Officer, In-charge, CSIR Dispensary, Lucknow as well as another Medical Officer of the CSIR Dispensary, after consideration of the respondent's report, submitted its Medical Board report on 10.07.2019, declaring the respondent medically unfit for the service in CSIR-IITR on account of "Portal Hypertension with Esophageal Varices requiring lifelong follow-up". The said order was duly communicated to the respondent, pursuant to which he submitted an application on 11.07.2019 for reconsideration of the Medical Board. His application was considered and rejected by means of order dated 16.08.2019, after holding that there was no error of judgment in the medical report and that the respondent had neither submitted any evidence in support thereof nor disputed the findings of the Medical Board as erroneous. There was no requirement for reconsideration of his case and, accordingly, the representation was rejected.

It seems that subsequent to the passing of the order dated 16.08.2019, the respondent, for the first time, came to know about the provisions contained in Government Order SR-4(1), Government of India decision, wherein there is a right of appeal against adverse findings by the Medical Board. It is thereafter that the respondent contacted some specialist doctors and subjected himself to re-examination by them. It seems that he was given a medical opinion to the effect that he was in good physical health except extrahepatic portal hypertension, for which he had undergone splenectomy and splenorenal shunt procedure at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab in 1999 and, therefore, his stress showed normal flow in the shunt, normal FibroScan, normal LFT and Grade 1 oesphageal varices, and accordingly, he was declared to be medically fit for the post of Senior Scientist. The opinion to the aforesaid effect was given by Dr. Ram Pratap Singh, M.D., D.M., Gasteroenterology, Vivakanand Polyclinic and Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow on 04.09.2019. Another medical report was obtained after examination of the respondent from the Punjab State Health System Corporation, Civil Hospital, Moga, wherein an opinion was given by Dr. Navraj Singh, M.B.B.S., M.S., General Surgery, on 28.08.2019, stating that the respondent had been operated upon for Extrahepatic Portal Hypertension 20 years ago and was presently physically and mentally fit to join as Senior Scientist at CSIR-IITR, Lucknow. Another medical opinion was also obtained from Dr. Arindam Ghosh, M.B.B.S., M.S. (General Surgery) and M.C.P. (Gastroenterology Surgery), who was working at S.P.S. Hospital, Ludhiana (Punjab) as a Senior Consultant and who, after examining the respondent, was also of the opinion that he was medically fit for appointment as a Scientist in CSIR.

All the aforesaid medical reports were filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, assailing the decision of the petitioners declaring him unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Scientist. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that, by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025, the Tribunal duly considered the entire material available on record as well as the stand taken by the petitioners, who had vehementally opposed the contention of the respondent for appointment to the post of Scientist.

The Tribunal also noticed the provisions of the Government of India Order contained in SR-4(1) was of the view that there was substantial material available on record indicating that the respondent, despite suffering from Portal Hypertension With Esophageal Varices, would still be fit for discharging his duties as a Scientists, and consequently, the contrary medical opinions obtained from various medical specialists ought to be reconsidered and another Medical Board for re-examination of the respondent was required to be constituted by the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid Government Order. Accordingly, the Original Application was disposed of with the aforesaid directions to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the present writ petition, while assailing the order of Tribunal, has vehementally submitted that, even though there may be an overwhelming medical opinion contrary to the opinion given by the Medical Board, nevertheless, as per the said Government Order, conditions contained in Clause (c) of the relevant Government Order have to be fulfilled and the opinion rendered by the Medical Board of the CSIR has to be duly intimated to the doctor who is examining the respondent before such contrary medical opinion can be considered and a re-examination is ordered. He submits that the Tribunal has ignored the said Government Order and, consequently, the same requires interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.

We have duly considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as perused the record. The facts in the present case are not disputed to the extent that the respondent was a candidate for the post of Senior Scientist and had participated in the recruitment process. The respondent was duly considered by the Selection Committee and was declared selected against the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued. It is at the stage of the post-appointment procedure pertaining to the attestation of documents and being declared medically fit for the Government post that it was found that the respondent was suffering from Portal Hypertension with Esophageal Varices requiring lifelong follow-up. It seems that there is again no reason to doubt the fact that the respondent was not aware of the relevant Government Order, by which there was a provision for re-examination of a candidate in case there was evidence to suggest that there was an error in considering his previous medical reports by the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority, and faced with such contrary medical opinion, he had a right to undergo re-medical examination before he could be finally declared to be unfit for appointment to the said post. It was stated that this aspect was revealed by the petitioners only when they rejected his representation on 16.08.2019. There is again no doubt that, subsequent to the rejection of his representation on 16.08.2019, he had sought various medical opinions from various specialists. Three medical opinions have been looked into by us, which are available on record, and which unequivocally state that the respondent had undergone a splenectomy and splenorenal shunt procedure at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiyana, Punjab, in 1999, subsequent to which there was normal flow in the shunt (normal splenic and left renal vein), normal FibroScan, normal LFT and Grade 1 oesphageal varices and all of them had opined that he was medically fit for the post of Senior Scientist. What emanates from the aforesaid medical opinions is not only the fact that the respondent was declared to be fit, but in all the opinions there is an averment that he had been found to be fit for the post of Senior Scientist, and accordingly, it cannot be said that the respondent did not disclose the fact that he was a candidate for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist and that his candidature was rejected on account of his being declared medically unfit due to Extrahepatic Portal Hypertension, and accordingly the conditions laid down in Government Order stand complied.

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the Government Order SR-4 (1). For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are quoted hereinbelow:

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that any person who is offered an appointment has to be declared medically fit by the Medical Board, which is duly appointed by the CSIR. Clause (b) of the aforesaid Government Order further states that, in case there is a possibility of an error of judgment and if the Government is satisfied on the evidence placed before it by the candidate, then it shall be open for the Government to allow re-examination in cases where the examination authority was the Medical Board, by a second Medical Board. Clause (b) clearly indicates that the candidate has to merely demonstrate an error of judgment, which, in our considered opinion, would stand established by a contrary medical opinion given by a specialist, which is different from or contrary to the medical opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority.

On adducing the aforesaid evidence, the Government would be duty-bound to subject such candidate to a re-medical examination by a medical authority. In the present case, as already dealt with by us hereinabove, three medical opinions have been placed on record, indicating a contrary medical opinion to that which was rendered by the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority, and hence, clearly, a case of an error of judgment was made out. We see no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal that the conditions contained in Clause (b) of the aforesaid Government Order stood fulfilled and, hence, his case for re-examination should be considered and an order for the same be passed.

Considering the provisions of Clause (c), which state that, in case an alternative medical opinion is obtained, it should be disclosed that there is already an existing medical opinion by the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority, and in case it is not disclosed, then it would be open for the petitioners not to consider such cases, much emphasis has been laid on Clause (c) by the petitioners, stating that, in the present case, his re-examination cannot be ordered merely because the respondent had not disclosed the rejection of his candidature by the petitioners.

We find that in all the three medical reports submitted by the respondent, there is a specific mention that he has been considered fit for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist. Such a specific medical opinion would have been rendered only when the respondent would have disclosed the necessity of obtaining the medical opinion and disclosed the fact that his candidature already stood rejected by the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that, once there is overwhelming evidence submitted by the candidate indicating that there is an error of judgment by the Medical Board constituted by the appointing authority, ordinarily, it would be sufficient to place the said material before the competent authority, who would be duty-bound to recommend his case for re-medical examination. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to place the case of the respondent for re-medical examination, and it is only after a fresh re-medical examination that the result thereof would be binding. In case, upon re-medical examination, the respondent is found fit, then certainly an offer of appointment would be made as per the directions issued by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, nor do we find any infirmity therein warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.