AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Since pleadings are complete, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties and having regard to the subject matter of the O.A., we dispose of this Original Application finally at the stage of admission.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present OA are as follows:
Respondent No. 2, UPSC, issued a notification dated 22.01.2025 for the Civil Services Examination, 2025, inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various services and posts under the Government of India, wherein seats are reserved for candidates who suffer from blindness and low vision (Category PwBD-2).
The applicant already possessed a certificate dated 16.02.2024 showing 40% visual impairment in terms of the applicable Guidelines and thereafter applied for CSE 2025 under the PwBD category. The applicant cleared CSE 2025 conducted by UPSC and secured All-India Rank 342. The applicant’s name was recommended by Respondent No. 2 (UPSC) to Respondent No. 1 (DoPT) for further action.
At the instance of Respondent No. 1 (DoPT), the applicant underwent general medical fitness examination conducted by Central Standing Medical Board (CSMB) at the designated Safdarjung Hospital. In order to ascertain benchmark disability for PwBD candidates, the applicant was also examined by the Benchmark Disability Expert Panel (BDEP) constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi. The benchmark disability of visual impairment was assessed by the BDEP, AIIMS, at 10%. The applicant thereafter, in terms of the Examination Rules, filed an appeal to the Appellate Disability Medical Board (ADMB) constituted at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi (Respondent No. 3). The applicant was thereafter examined and her visual impairment was assessed at 40%, however, the report was not furnished to the applicant. At this stage, the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs and interim relief:
Reliefs Sought
“1.This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to declare the findings of Respondent No. 5 – Army Hospital (R&R) with respect to the Medical Examination Report of the Applicant as being final and binding on the Respondent No. 2 and further declare that the Respondent No. 2 shall not interfere in the Medical Examination process of the Applicant beyond the Civil Services Rules.
2.To direct the Respondent No. 2 to act in accordance with CSE Rules, 2025, and established principle of natural justice.
3.This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3, Army Hospital (R&R), to provide the Report of the Medical Examination of the Applicant conducted from 20.04.2026 to 08.05.2026.”
Interim reliefs sought
“(1)Direct the Respondent No. 1 to publish the Appellate Medical Examination Report of the Applicant conducted by the Respondent No. 3, Army Hospital (R&R), along with the recommendations forthwith.
(2)Direct the Respondent No. 1 to recognize the legal status of the Applicant as a Person with Disability based upon the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board (Respondent No. 3), in accordance with the CSE Rules, 2025 only”
During the pendency of the application, the applicant received two letters from Respondent No. 1 directing her to approach a third hospital for ascertaining her benchmark disability in light of the two different opinions by AIIMS and Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi. These letters have been stayed by this Tribunal.
Mr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited our attention to Rule 5(11) of the CSE Rules, 2025, and submitted that the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board is final and no appeal would lie against it. He further submitted that the appellate report is final, Respondent No. 1 must act on the said report and take further action in pursuance of the recommendation by UPSC (Respondent No. 2).
Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the contrary, contested the application. He submitted that since there is a variation in the two reports, namely those of AIIMS and the Army Hospital, regarding the visual impairment of the applicant, the applicant deserved to be referred to a third hospital. He further submitted that the applicant has not challenged the general examination report of Safdarjung Hospital assessing visual impairment at 10% and therefore it cannot now lie in the mouth of the applicant that the opinion of the Appellate Disability Medical Board is final. Mr. Rana, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, has also filed a counter-affidavit and, along with the said counter-affidavit, has also placed on record the medical report of the applicant regarding visual disability from the ADMB at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi (Respondent No. 3). Under this report, the appellate authority has assessed the visual impairment of the applicant at 40%.
Having gone through the pleadings and given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we find merit in the contentions of the applicant.
The short issue involved in the present O.A. is whether, once the benchmark disability report for PwBD from the Army Hospital (Research & Referral) assessing visual impairment at 40% is available, the respondents can again compel the applicant to submit to a fresh examination by a third hospital.
Rule 5(11) of Appendix III of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2025, reads as follows:
“5 (11). Candidate filing an appeal against the report of the BDEP will be referred to Appellate Disability Medical Board (ADMB) constituted at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi. ADMB will comprise of members who would be of suitable rank and position and the same would invariably be headed by HOD. The candidate will have to be present before this Board on the date and time indicated in the notice for the same which will be uploaded in the website on the dedicated page for the candidate concerned. No separate notice by post would be sent. The opinion of this ADMB would be final and no appeal would lie against its opinion.”
In light of the above Rule, after recommendation of the applicant’s name by UPSC to DoPT, the applicant was required to undergo the general examination at Safdarjung Hospital. She was also required to undergo examination for her PwBD disability, namely visual impairment (benchmark disability), at AIIMS. It is an admitted fact that the visual impairment of the applicant was assessed by AIIMS at 10%. In terms of the provisions of Rule 5(11) referred to above, the applicant preferred an appeal and, in pursuance of this appeal, the applicant was referred to Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi (Respondent No. 3). There is no dispute amongst the parties that the ADMB assessed the applicant’s visual impairment at 40%.. Rule 5(11) makes it clear that the report of the ADMB would be final and no appeal would lie against its opinion. As such, Respondent No. 1, after the opinion of the ADMB, could not have required the applicant to undergo another examination at a different hospital. Respondent No. 1, in light of the report of the Appellate Disability Medical Board, should have proceeded further and acted upon the recommendation of UPSC. The submission of Mr. Rana, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, that there was variation in the reports regarding the visual impairment of the applicant and therefore the applicant needed to be examined by a third body, cannot be accepted.
In light of the above, we allow the Original Application and direct Respondent No. 1 to treat the findings of Respondent no. 3 with respect to the medical examination of the applicant as final, in accordance with CSE Rules, 2025 and to proceed with service allocation as per the relevant rules.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.