⚖️ Context & Background

In the case of Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs. Gajendra Singh Dangi, decided by the Delhi High Court on July 24, 2025, the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decision that emphasized procedural fairness in medical evaluations during government recruitments.

Gajendra Singh, a candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, was initially declared medically unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) citing hypertension and flat feet. On Review Medical Examination (RME), the finding of flat feet was removed, but the hypertension diagnosis remained.

However, Singh later produced a medical certificate from a government hospital that declared him medically fit. He moved the CAT, which ordered a fresh independent medical examination at a different government hospital, and granted notional appointment benefits if found fit.

🧾 SSC’s Challenge & Court’s Reasoning

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) challenged the CAT’s decision, arguing that two medical boards had consistently found the candidate unfit.

However, the High Court cited its own judgment in SSC v. Vijay Kumar (2025), where it had laid down clear procedural standards for hypertension assessments. As per those guidelines:

A candidate diagnosed with hypertension must be admitted to a hospital, and blood pressure must be monitored at intervals, accounting for possible anxiety-induced spikes (commonly known as White Coat Syndrome).

In Gajendra Singh’s case, this protocol was not followed by either DME or RME.

✅ Final Verdict

The High Court dismissed SSC’s petition, confirming that the medical assessments could not be relied upon in the absence of procedural compliance. The Tribunal’s order for a fresh medical examination stands, and the candidate’s right to fair evaluation is upheld.

📌 Key Takeaways

• Due process matters, even in physical fitness evaluations.
• Medical disqualifications must follow proper protocols to prevent arbitrary exclusion.
• The Court prioritizes transparency and fairness in public sector hiring.

🔍 This judgment is a crucial precedent for candidates and practitioners involved in government recruitment, especially in cases of medical fitness-related disputes.