Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that despite the absence of explicit disqualification on account of a single testis in the CAPF Guidelines, the requirement of perfect health for paramilitary forces remains paramount. The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Review Medical Board’s decision and declined to interfere with the medical unfitness determination.

The Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, published a recruitment advertisement in October 2024 for Group A posts, including Super Specialist Medical Officers (Second-in-Command), Specialist Medical Officers (Deputy Commandant), and Medical Officers (Assistant Commandant). The petitioner applied for the post of Medical Officer (Assistant Commandant).

Also Read: Supreme Court: “Unregistered Document May Be Received as Evidence of a Contract” in Specific Performance Suit

As part of the recruitment process, the petitioner underwent the Medical Examination Test (MET) and was declared medically unfit on 20.03.2025. The reason stated was "Left Testis absent. H/o Left Orchidectomy." Subsequently, the petitioner was examined by the Review Medical Board (RMB) on 22.03.2025, which reaffirmed the finding of medical unfitness.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 and a direction to declare him medically fit for the position. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner had undergone surgery in 2014 due to torsion, leading to the removal of his left testis. An ultrasound report dated 14.02.2014 and a medical report dated 27.02.2014 confirmed torsion and haemorrhagic infarction of the testis.

It was further submitted that the CAPF Guidelines, issued vide Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, do not list "surgical removal of testis (Orchidectomy) for torsion" as a ground for disqualification. Reference was made to other paramilitary forces' guidelines where undescended testis or Orchidectomy is not a disqualifying factor. The petitioner relied on a communication dated 21.03.2025 from the RMB seeking specialized surgical opinion and on a medical prescription dated 08.03.2025 issued by AIIMS, Delhi, asserting his physical fitness.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner failed to meet the medical standards required under Paragraph 3(e) of Chapter XIII of the CAPF Guidelines, which mandates that both testes should be present in the scrotal sac. The respondents cited the rigorous physical standards demanded for paramilitary service due to the challenging nature of the duties.

The Court observed that "the highest standards of physical fitness are expected from the candidate seeking recruitment to the subject post due to the arduous nature of the duties performed by the officers posted in the Central Armed Police Forces." The Court recorded that "undescended testis, ectopic testis, and atrophic/hypothrophic testis are considered as disqualification" under the CAPF Guidelines.

Referring to the precedent set in Satender Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., the Court recorded that "writ courts ought not to interfere in matters where a candidature has been rejected as the writ courts do not sit in appeal over such decisions."

The Court further quoted from Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, noting that "the function of the Court can only, therefore, be to examine whether the manner in which the candidate was assessed by the Medical Boards, and the conclusion which the Medical Boards have arrived, inspires confidence, or transgresses any established norm of law, procedure or fair play."

Also Read: Jammu And Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention As Procedurally Flawed | Says Liberty Of A Citizen Is A ‘Handle With Care And Caution’ Tag | Orders Immediate Release

The Bench concluded that despite the CAPF Guidelines not explicitly listing surgical removal of a testis due to torsion as a ground for disqualification, the petitioner’s condition fell under the medical standards requiring both testes to be present in the scrotal sac. The Court held that "the Indian paramilitary forces operate in varied terrains including high altitude areas, deserts, and other difficult regions... the forces require personnel to be in an optimal physical condition to ensure their safety, effectiveness, and adequate service to the force."

The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that "the respondent’s requirement for the personnel to be in perfect health is not merely a matter of preference but a necessity for operational effectiveness and safety."

The judgment directed that "this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition and thus, the same stands dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of." No orders as to costs were made.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava and Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr. Amit Kaushik, and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocates

Case Title: Shikhar Prasad v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3778-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3776/2025

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul

[Read/Download order]