Justice Sameer Jain, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Medical Disqualification Based On Unfounded Assumption Regarding Birthmark: Rajasthan High Court Holds Woman Candidate Entitled To Post Of Constable In CAPF
|A female candidate who had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles had approached the Rajasthan High Court.
Terming the medical disqualification based on unfounded assumption regarding birthmark as arbitrary, the Rajasthan High Court held that a female candidate was entitled to be considered for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) under the recruitment process initiated in the year 2024.
A woman candidate, who had had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, had approached the High Court seeking setting aside of the decision of the medical board rejecting her candidature on the grounds of her birthmark which had no bearing on her physical fitness for duty.
The Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain asserted, “The petitioner’s medical disqualification, based on an unfounded assumption regarding her birthmark, is found to be arbitrary, lacking in sufficient medical or logical reasoning.”
Advocate Tanveer Ahamad represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ashish Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent-Staff Selection Commission, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Riffles. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied under the SC-Female category. Sequentially, the petitioner completed the part-I registration of the online application form and appeared in the online examination. She obtained 135.95 marks ,and the cut-off under the category in which the petitioner had applied was 119.16 marks.
Consecutively, the petitioner was called for PET/PST and DV/DME. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and she was declared unsuccessful/disqualified in PST on the ground that she had a congenital melanocytic nevus (mark) on back and the report of Cardiomegaly (Chest X-Ray) was not as per the norms of the respondent-recruiting agency.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioner that notwithstanding her medical fitness in relation to cardiomegaly, the petitioner was subsequently declared unfit for service based exclusively on the presence of a birthmark, which was deemed an impediment to her ability to perform her duties.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner is a female candidate belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) Category who is aged approximately 28 years, hailing from a humble background. The independent expert’s report confirmed that the birthmark, which is clinically identified as a noncommunicable and non-infectious condition, does not pose a health hazard to others by touch or through the air, thus establishing its benign nature. “This expert testimony stands unrebutted, implying that the condition is not a medical disqualification”, it added.
As per the Bench, the review medical board’s opinion appeared to be legally unsustainable, non-corroborated by a lawful rationale and was therefore, subject to judicial review. In the absence of any substantiated medical or logical reasoning for the rejection of the petitioner’s medical fitness, judicial intervention was warranted.
The review medical board had assumed that the petitioner’s birthmark may cause irritation in hot and humid climates, without providing any logical or scientific reasoning. On this aspect, the Bench held that presumptions made in such a manner are unsubstantiated and cannot serve as a valid ground for medical rejection, as they lack a clear nexus to the petitioner’s actual condition. “Nevertheless, res ipsa loquitur meaning that the thing speaks for itself; as in the matter in hand the expert opinion (by JLN Government Hospital, Ajmer) clarifies that the birthmark is medically insignificant and poses no risk”, it further said.
Considering the fact that the petitioner was previously declared medically fit during an earlier selection process carried out by the Border Security Force (BSF), after considering her birthmark, the Bench held that this prior determination of medical fitness should hold significant weight in the present review process, particularly when the review does not provide substantial new evidence to contradict it.
“It can also be noted that the advertisement was issued vis-à-vis the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), where the likelihood of being assigned to combat duties is minimal. This fact is crucial, as the medical standards required for combat roles might differ from those for administrative or other non-combat duties. Thus, the petitioner’s medical condition, which does not affect her daily work or capabilities, should not disqualify her from serving in her current role”, the Bench said.
The Bench thus held the petitioner entitled to be considered for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) under the recruitment process initiated in the year 2024.Allowing the Petition, it ordered, “...the petitioner should be granted the same opportunity as other similarly situated candidates who participated in the said 2024 recruitment process. The Medical Board report dated 09.11.2024 and the Review Medical Board report dated 13.11.2024, declaring the petitioner ‘unfit’ are hereby quashed and set aside.”
Cause Title: Ramkala Varma v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:7834)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Tanveer Ahamad, Sunil Kumar Saini
Respondents: Advocates Ashish Kumar, Digvijay Singh, Assistant Commandant, CRPF Anupam Singh through VC Dr. Pramit Garg, CMO CR. (S.G) through VC Mr. Manish Jeph, Asst. Prof. Skin & V.C.