A Small Degree of Scoliosis Cannot Be Stretched To Deny Appointment:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Appointment Of Constable Despite Medical Board’s Earlier Unfitness Declaration

Specialist Board Declared Him Fit — Denying Appointment Would Be A Travesty of Justice - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a crucial verdict restoring the candidature of a constable candidate who was earlier rejected on medical grounds. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta set aside the Single Judge's order that upheld the rejection and directed Ranbir's appointment. The Court observed, “Merely because of some 15-degree curve in the spine, we cannot say that it is a deformity nor can it be said that there is a finding to deprive him from performing the duties as a constable.”

Ranbir, the appellant, had successfully cleared the written, physical, and measurement tests for the post of Male Constable (General Duty) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 19th July 2015. Having scored 65.60 marks (above the cut-off of 61.90 marks) and completing the physical endurance test, he was subjected to a medical examination. The Civil Surgeon, Hisar, referring to a PGIMS, Rohtak report, declared him unfit due to “right dorso-lumbar scoliosis.”

Ranbir challenged the rejection by filing a writ petition. However, the Single Judge upheld the rejection, relying on medical opinions suggesting possible future complications. The appellant argued that the curvature was mild and not disabling, and that he had cleared all physical tests, including running 5 kilometers within the prescribed time.

The primary question before the Court was whether a minor spinal curvature, without present functional limitation, could legally disqualify a candidate from appointment as a constable.

The Court stressed, “A specific opinion is required to be given for declaring a person unfit. Merely because of some 15-degree curve in the spine, we cannot say that it is a deformity.” The Court noted that while the Civil Surgeon mechanically declared Ranbir unfit, neither PGIMS Rohtak nor PGIMER Chandigarh had rendered any such opinion based on detailed assessment.

The Court further commented, “We are conscious that this Court would not have expertise to declare a particular person fit or unfit, but since a Special Medical Board, consisting of seven doctors from the necessary medical fields, namely Orthopedics, Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Internal Medicine, have examined the appellant and found him fit, denying him the benefit of appointment would be a travesty of justice.”

On the procedure followed by the State, the Bench observed that the mere reproduction of textbook complications by doctors without an individualized assessment cannot be accepted. The Court noted, “From the perusal of the report, we find that two doctors downloaded the complications as available from the books and conveyed it to the authorities and did not give their own opinion.”

On the doctrine of lis pendens, the Court categorically rejected the State’s plea that posts were no longer available and held, “It is at their own risk and cost that they have filled the posts and, therefore, the contention raised by counsel for the respondents is not sustainable.”

The Bench relied on Rule 12.16(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which mandates that a candidate may be rejected only for “any disease or defect which is likely to render them unfit for the full duties of a police officer.” The Court found that there was no such finding by any expert medical board.

The Court quoted the PGIMER Medical Board’s opinion verbatim: “The spine is well balanced and he does not have any complaints or restrictions at present. He is independent of activities of daily living, he can walk, run, hop on either leg and does not have any neurological deficits. He is currently fit to perform the duties of a constable.”

The Court further clarified, “The possibility of future illness and troubles, which an individual may face, depends on several circumstances and contingencies and the same cannot be a possible apparent ground to deny appointment to the appellant.”

Recognizing that the appellant had participated in the selection process and cleared all stages successfully, the Court ordered that he be appointed with notional seniority and pay fixation, stating, “He shall, however, be only given benefit notionally from the date the candidates lower in merit from him have been appointed. His pay fixation shall be done accordingly and actual benefits shall be given from the date of passing of this order.”

The Court decisively held that a minor spinal curvature, in the absence of current functional disability, cannot be used to deny appointment, especially when cleared by a competent medical board. The Bench remarked, “Denying him the benefit of appointment would be a travesty of justice.”

The Court also reaffirmed the principle that pending litigation cannot be defeated by administrative actions taken during the pendency of the matter, invoking the doctrine of lis pendens.

Date of Decision: 18th March 2025