Clarifying Medical Fitness Standards in Police Recruitment: Minor Scoliosis Not a Disqualifier – Ranbir v. State of Haryana

Introduction

Ranbir v. State of Haryana and Others (LPA No. 128 of 2020) was decided by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Hon’ble Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta) on March 18, 2025. The appellant, Mr. Ranbir, applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission in July 2015. He scored 65.60 marks (cut‑off 61.90), passed all physical trials and measurements, but was declared medically unfit due to 15° dorso‑lumbar scoliosis by the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa. The key issues were (a) whether a 15° spinal curve without current functional limitation could disqualify a recruit, and (b) whether the doctrine of lis pendens barred his appointment because posts had been filled during pendency of his writ petition.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Civil Surgeon, Sirsa alone declared the appellant unfit without detailed justification. Subsequent medical boards at PGIMS Rohtak and PGIMER Chandigarh—comprising orthopaedists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and internists—found Mr. Ranbir fit for constable duties, noting he had no current complaints, neurological deficits, or restrictions in daily activities.
• The Court held that under Rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applied to Haryana), a recruit can be disqualified only by a specific medical opinion of unfitness from the Civil Surgeon or an equivalent statutory authority; a mere medical “defect” or risk of future degeneration is not enough.
• On the doctrine of lis pendens, relying on M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Others (2024 INSC 861), the Court reaffirmed that filling posts during litigation does not defeat the right of a successful litigant. Any appointments made are at the risk of the authority.
• The appeal was allowed. The appellant was directed to be given a notional appointment from the date on which lower‑ranked candidates were appointed and to be formally inducted within one month, with consequential pay fixation.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Others (2024 INSC 861): Clarified that the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882) attaches from the date of institution of suit or proceeding and protects the plaintiff’s rights against third‑party transferees. The High Court applied this principle to police recruitments filled during pendency of the writ petition.
• Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 12.16(1): Requires every recruit to be “medically examined and certified physically fit for service by the Civil Surgeon” in a prescribed form. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of a specific medical fitness certificate.

2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Statutory Requirement of Specific Medical Opinion
Rule 12.16(1) mandates a personal certification by the Civil Surgeon that a candidate is fit “for the full duties of a police officer.” The Court held that:

• A general notation of “dorso‑lumbar scoliosis” without an explicit finding as to disqualification is insufficient.
• The risk of future back‑ache or curve progression does not, by itself, render a recruit unfit for present duties.

(b) Reliance on Specialized Medical Boards
The Court formed a final Medical Board at PGIMER Chandigarh with multi‑disciplinary experts. Their unanimous finding—that Mr. Ranbir had no current functional limitations, neurological deficits, or inability to perform strenuous activities—overrode the earlier single‑doctor opinion.

(c) Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Even though the State proceeded to fill constable vacancies during litigation, Section 52 TPA and the Supreme Court’s exposition in Siddamsetty Infra prevented the State from defeating the appellant’s claim. The High Court held such appointments “at the risk and cost” of the State.

3. Impact

This decision has threefold significance:

1. It raises the bar for medical disqualification in police recruitments, requiring tailored, written medical findings that directly link a condition to inability to perform specific duties.
2. It underlines the value of multi‑disciplinary medical boards in resolving fitness disputes, discouraging unilateral or boilerplate rejections based solely on anatomical anomalies.
3. It reaffirms that administrative lapse in keeping vacancies open during litigation cannot prejudice the litigant; the doctrine of lis pendens will protect successful candidates even if posts are filled.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Dorso‑lumbar scoliosis: A sideways curvature of the spine in the dorsal (mid‑back) and lumbar (lower back) regions. A 15° curve is considered mild.
• Rule 12.16, Punjab Police Rules, 1934: A statutory provision requiring a formal fitness certificate by a Civil Surgeon before any police recruit can be enrolled.
• Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52, TPA): Once litigation over identifiable rights or property is instituted, any transfer of those rights during pendency is subject to the outcome of the case.

Conclusion

Ranbir v. State of Haryana clarifies that minor anatomical variations, such as a 15° spinal curve, do not amount to disqualification for a demanding post like Constable unless a medical authority explicitly certifies unfitness. The decision strengthens procedural safeguards by mandating specific medical findings and highlights the judiciary’s willingness to form specialized Medical Boards. Additionally, it reaffirms that administrative convenience cannot override the litigant’s rights under the doctrine of lis pendens. This judgment will guide future recruitments and medical‑fitness disputes across uniformed services, ensuring fairness and adherence to statutory norms.