Petitioner Illegally And Arbitrarily Rejected For Port Wine Stain | J&K High Court Quashes Medical Ineligibility And Orders Fresh CAPF Examination
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Akram Chowdhary quashed the medical examination reports issued by the Detailed Medical Board and the Review Medical Board that had declared a candidate medically unfit for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces. Holding that the rejection lacked medical justification and was in contravention of applicable guidelines, the Court directed the respondents to convene a Revised Medical Board. It ordered that the candidate be re-examined and, if found fit under the prescribed standards, appointed to the post, provided he fulfilled other eligibility conditions.
The petitioner, aged 22½ years, applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, SSF, or Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles pursuant to a notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on 24 November 2023. The petitioner appeared in the written examination on 28 February 2024 and secured 110.38654 marks. He was subsequently called for the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET), which he qualified on 5 October 2024. After successful document verification, he was subjected to a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 8 October 2024.
The DME Board declared the petitioner unfit due to a “port wine stain” on his face. The petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Board (RME) the next day, 9 October 2024, but was again declared unfit on the same ground. The petitioner challenged both the DME and RME reports through the present writ petition, asserting that the decision lacked reasoning and contravened the Uniform Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 31 May 2021.
It was submitted that the petitioner possessed an “A” Class NCC certificate, had participated in a district-level football tournament, and had no functional impairment due to the birthmark. He also relied on a certificate issued by the Dermatology Department of Government Medical College, Jammu, dated 25 October 2024, certifying the mark as a benign, non-infective, and non-contagious vascular birthmark measuring 8x6 cm.
The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further claimed that the earlier Medical Board under the Army recruitment process had found him fit before the Agniveer Scheme halted that selection.
In their reply, the respondents maintained that recruitment into CAPFs involved specific medical standards due to the demanding nature of the duties, particularly in inhospitable terrain. They submitted that the petitioner was found unfit by specialist doctors both in the DME and RME and that their medical opinion could not be overridden or subjected to civilian medical certificates. It was further argued that no provision existed for a third medical examination and that the rejection was consistent with Clause 6(20) of the Revised Guidelines of 2021.
The Court examined the Revised Uniform Guidelines dated 31 May 2021, particularly Clause 6(20) concerning general grounds for rejection due to congenital abnormalities. It further reviewed Clause XII, Part B, sub-clause (8), which mentions that congenital or acquired skin anomalies such as nevi or vascular tumors that interfere with function or are exposed to constant irritation are disqualifying.
The Court recorded that both the Detailed Medical Examination Board and the Review Medical Examination Board had declared the petitioner unfit on account of a port wine stain on his face, but had not provided any explanation as to the specific conditions under which such a finding of unfitness could be made. It further noted that the medical reports contained only cryptic observations and that the respondents had failed to produce any supporting record of the examination.
It stated: “The contention of the learned Dy.SGI that... no third examination is permissible... seems to be untenable in view of no reason assigned in view of the Revised Uniform Guidelines dated 31.05.2021.”
In support of the petitioner’s position, the Court referred to Ashok Dukiya v. Union of India, where a similar rejection due to a congenital birthmark was set aside for lack of reasoning and violation of guidelines. Likewise, it noted Ramkala Varma v. Union of India, where the petitioner was declared unfit solely for having a benign birthmark. The Rajasthan High Court had ruled that the rejection was speculative and not legally justified, especially in light of supporting medical opinions and earlier declarations of fitness.
The Court observed that the facts in Ramkala Varma were “identical to the facts on hand,” and that the Medical Boards in the instant case had also failed to assess whether the birthmark impeded the petitioner’s ability to perform duties.
The Court also relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Yogesh v. Union of India, stating: “Existence of a particular condition in a candidate would not ipso facto render such candidate unfit for discharging the assigned duties in the service.”
Referring to its own earlier ruling in Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, where a Review Medical Board’s decision was quashed for lack of expert opinion showing interference with functional duties, the Court held that similar principles applied to the present case.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s disqualification was based on a “casual manner” and lacked credible medical justification. It stated: “The medical opinion formulated vide impugned Medical Examination reports has not shown the unsuitability of the petitioner.”
The Court held that the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily rejected, and found it to be a fit case for judicial interference. It directed that a fresh medical board be convened for the petitioner, for considering his eligibility for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles.
The Court further directed that if the petitioner is found fit to perform the duties of a Constable (GD) in terms of the Revised Uniform Guidelines of 2021, as contained in the communication dated 31.05.2021, and the observations made in the judgment, he shall be offered an appointment, if he is otherwise found qualified for appointment.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and both the impugned reports dated 08.10.2024 and 09.10.2024 passed by the Medical Boards were quashed.
The respondents were directed to convene a Revised Medical Board and re-examine the petitioner. The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of the judgment is served upon them.
The writ petition was disposed of along with all connected applications. No order as to costs was passed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title : Anish Rajulia v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No.2744/2024
Bench: Justice Mohammed Akram Chowdhary
[Read/Download order]
