Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ramkala Varma D/O Shri Dhuna Ram vs Union Of India on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:7834]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17749/2024
Ramkala Varma D/o Shri Dhuna Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village And Post Baldod, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, ( At Present
District Kotputali), (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern
Region, Block No. 12, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi- 1100003
3. Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
1100003
4. Director General, Crpf (Recruitment Branch), East Block-
07, Level- 4, Sector 01, R.k. Puram, New Delhi.
5. Review Medical Board, Ch- BSF, Jodhpur, Served To Be
Through PP/ CMO (Sg) Composite Hospital, Mandore
Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.with
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv. with
Mr. Anupam Singh, Assistant
Commandant, CRPF through VC
Dr. Pramit Garg, CMO CR. (S.G)
through VC
Mr. Manish Jeph, Asst. Prof. Skin &
V.C., present in person
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 20/02/2025
Pronounced on :: 03/03/2025
Reportable
1. The nitty-gritty of the instant petition is that the
respondent-Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (2 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
dated 24.11.2023 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 held on 07.03.2024; wherein she had
obtained 135.95 marks and the cut-off under the category in
which the petitioner had applied was 119.16 marks.
2. Consecutively, the petitioner was called for PET/PST
and DV/DME which was scheduled on 08.11.2024. However, the
candidature of the petitioner was rejected and she was declared
unsuccessful/disqualified in PST due the following two reasons:
2.1 That the petitioner has a congenital melanocytic nevus
(mark) on back.
2.2 That the report of Cardiomegaly (Chest X-Ray) was not as
per the norms of the respondent-recruiting agency.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING
THE PETITIONER:
3. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner had contended that the petitioner, having
undergone a medical evaluation by the designated medical board,
was initially declared fit with respect to cardiomegaly. However,
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. Thence, it can be
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (3 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
deduced that this assessment is incorrect and unjust, particularly
when the medical opinions presented are carefully scrutinized.
4. It was further averred that the petitioner possesses a
congenital melanocytic nevus, commonly referred to as a
birthmark, which is present since birth. Nevertheless, a thorough
medical opinion was sought by the concerned authorities to
ascertain whether this condition could be deemed a medical
impediment or otherwise. Moreover, the opinion rendered by an
expert in dermatology, whose qualifications and expertise are
beyond dispute, clearly states that the petitioner’s congenital
melanocytic nevus is neither communicable nor contagious. It
does not pose any risk to others by touch or air. Importantly, from
a dermatological perspective, it can be noted that the petitioner is
entirely fit for duty and this condition does not, in any way, impair
her ability to perform the tasks required in her role.
5. Furthermore, it was contended that the expert
dermatologist, whose opinion is documented in the petition,
unequivocally confirms that the petitioner’s birthmark is a benign
condition that does not affect her physical fitness. This opinion is
grounded in established dermatological principles and is consistent
with widely accepted medical practice. Notwithstanding the
comprehensive and medically sound opinion provided by the
dermatologist, the petitioner’s review medical board opinion,
dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure-4), has unjustifiably declared her
unfit based on the same congenital melanocytic nevus. The
board’s decision to declare the petitioner unfit is contrary to the
clear medical evidence presented, and there appears to be no
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (4 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
reasonable or rational basis for disregarding the specialized
opinion of the expert in dermatology. Nonetheless, the board’s
conclusion is not supported by any relevant medical rationale and
fails to account for the expert’s findings regarding the petitioner’s
overall physical fitness and ability to render the service allotted to
her.
6. Learned counsel had laid emphasis on the
aforementioned and had submitted that the birthmark located on
the petitioner’s back is a purely cosmetic issue and, as such, does
not affect her physical fitness or her ability to carry out the duties
associated with her role. The rejection of the petitioner’s
candidature based on this condition is not only illegal but also
arbitrary. It was then contended that the medical condition, being
non-communicable, does not hinder the petitioner’s performance
in any capacity, and there is no justifiable medical or legal basis
for its consideration as a disqualifying factor. It was further
submitted that the petitioner satisfies all relevant qualifications as
per the guidelines set by the employer/respondents. Nevertheless,
in a previous recruitment process conducted by the Border
Security Force (BSF), the petitioner was declared medically fit,
and despite this, her candidacy was rejected on the merits herein,
which appears to be a case of inconsistency and unjust treatment.
As evidenced by Annexure-8 (Copy of relevant RME dated
17.09.2022) to the petition, the petitioner was previously found to
meet the medical standards required for the position, and the
arbitrary rejection of her candidature in the present instance is a
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (5 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
clear violation of her rights and a failure to adhere to the
established standards.
7. In support of the contentions noted insofar, learned
counsel had placed reliance upon the dictum encapsulated in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.940/2021, titled as Ashok Dukiya Vs.
Union of India and Ors., decided by the Principal Seat at
Jodhpur vide judgment dated 09.02.2021, wherein similar issues
concerning medical disqualification were considered, and it was
held that an arbitrary rejection based on minor or cosmetic
medical conditions that do not impair the ability to perform job
duties is impermissible. Withal, the principle of proportionality was
upheld, and it was ruled that the employer must exercise its
powers in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, ensuring that
disqualifications are grounded in genuine medical reasons rather
than cosmetic or trivial concerns.
8. Additionally, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner had relied upon the opinion of an independent Doctor
from Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, which corroborates the
petitioner’s claim that the birthmark is a benign and non-
contagious condition. This expert opinion further substantiates the
petitioner’s assertion that the condition does not interfere with her
physical fitness for the job, reinforcing the arbitrary and unjust
nature of the medical board’s decision.
9. Lastly, it was averred that the actions of the medical
board and the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature are in
violation of principles of natural justice, fairness, and
proportionality. The arbitrary rejection, particularly in light of the
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (6 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
petitioner’s previous medical fitness certification and the expert
opinions provided, cannot be sustained under the law. Further, the
employer’s decision-making process, based on cosmetic and non-
substantive medical conditions, violates the petitioner’s
fundamental right to equality as enshrined under the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as well as her right to a fair
and reasonable evaluation of her qualifications.
10. In view of the above, learned counsel had prayed that
this Court may set aside the decision of the medical board
rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the grounds of the
birthmark, which has no bearing on her physical fitness for duty
and direct the respondents to act in a lawful and valid manner.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENTS:
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents had stoutly opposed the contentions made by the
counsel representing the petitioner and along with the Officers
who have marked presence via Video Conference had submitted
that the scope of judicial review in the present matter is miniscule.
It was further contended that, in the absence of any allegations of
malafides, the opinion of the medical board, which is composed of
qualified and expert professionals, should not be subject to
interference by this Court. Learned counsel had further argued
that the medical board’s decision is final and binding, particularly
in cases concerning fitness for service in the Central Armed Police
Forces and Assam Rifles. Nevertheless, the role of the judiciary in
such matters is primarily to examine whether the decision of the
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (7 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
medical board is arbitrary, discriminatory, or based on extraneous
considerations. In the absence of malafides or any gross violation
of established norms or principles, it is submitted that this Court
should refrain from interfering with the expert opinion of the
medical board. Moreover, the medical board, being composed of
professionals with specific expertise in determining medical fitness
for recruitment, is better positioned to make such determinations.
12. Learned counsel had further submitted that the opinion
of the medical board, which is tasked with conducting the medical
evaluation for recruitment in the Central Armed Police Forces,
should be accorded greater weight than that of any private
medical practitioner. The medical board comprises officers and
experts who are specially equipped to assess the physical and
medical fitness of candidates for the unique and demanding
requirements of uniformed services. The counsel for the
respondents assert that these experts are better suited to
determine whether a candidate’s physical condition, including any
cosmetic or non-threatening medical conditions, impedes their
ability to perform the duties required in such roles.
13. In support of the contentions noted insofar, learned
counsel had placed reliance upon the ‘Guidelines for Recruitment
Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam
Rifles’, specifically referring to Para 6 (General Grounds for
Rejection) and Point 8 (Other Conditions for Rejection), which
outline the criteria under which a candidate may be disqualified on
medical grounds. According to these guidelines, the presence of a
birthmark, particularly if it is deemed to be an impediment to the
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (8 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
physical requirements of uniformed service, qualifies as a
disqualifying condition. It was submitted that, based on the
findings of the medical board (in review medical examination also)
and the relevant provisions in the recruitment guidelines, the
petitioner does not meet the medical standards required for
recruitment. For the safe of convenience the relevant extract from
the afore-relied guidelines is reproduced herein below:
“6. General grounds for rejection:-
…… 20) Any congenital abnormality, so as
to impede efficient discharge of
training/duties.
B. Others conditions which are to be
considered for rejection:-
8. Congenital or acquired anomalies of
the skin such as nevi or vascular tumors
that interfere with function, or are
exposed to constant irritation are
disqualifying. History of Dysplastic Nevus
Syndrome is disqualifying.”
14. Learned counsel further contended that the judgment
enunciated in Ashok Dukiya (supra) is not applicable to the
present case, as the guidelines referred to therein were not fully
considered. The guidelines for medical evaluation, as prescribed
by the employer, are comprehensive and must be applied in toto.
In the instant case, the respondents have followed these
guidelines meticulously, and the petitioner’s rejection is based on
these very criteria. It was further submitted that the medical
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (9 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
board’s decision is grounded in the proper application of these
guidelines, which take into account the specific medical and
physical requirements necessary for recruitment in uniformed
services. The birthmark condition in question was determined to
be a disqualifying factor under these guidelines, which is why the
petitioner was found unfit.
15. Further, reliance was also placed upon the expert
medical opinion provided in the additional affidavit, which
unequivocally states that the petitioner’s congenital melanocytic
nevus will interfere with her ability to perform her duties.
Precisely, it was contended that the petitioner will be exposed to
hot and humid climatic conditions in the course of her duties,
which could cause irritation due to the presence of the birthmark.
This irritation could impede the petitioner’s ability to effectively
carry out her responsibilities, thereby justifying her rejection from
the recruitment process on medical grounds. The respondents
asserted that these findings are based on the professional
judgment of qualified medical experts, who have the requisite
expertise in assessing the physical demands of the job in question.
16. Learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of
judgments, a few amongst the others are noted herein as;
Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secretary Ministry of Home and Ors.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11669/2016) decided by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.04.2017, Hanuman Lal Jat
Vs. Secretary Ministry of Home and Ors. (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.1259/2017), Jitendra Singh Sandu Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. [D.B. CSA(W) No.01/2022]
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (10 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
decided by Rajasthan High Court on 03.07.2002, Manish Kumar
Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (SLP(C) No.26223/2008)
decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 19.05.2010, Aman
Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.18240/2024), and Karamveer Vs. Union of India and
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1664/2020).
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
17. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering
the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the
arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down
indubitable facts:-
17.1) 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. This fact can be
significant for understanding the socio-economic and cultural
context in which the petitioner operates.
17.2) That the petitioner possesses a congenital melanocytic
nevus, a birthmark, which is clinically identified as a non-
communicable and non-infectious condition. The independent
expert’s report confirms that it 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.
17.3) Ergo, considering the aforementioned, juxtaposing the
averments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (11 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition for the following
reasons:
17.4) The review medical board’s opinion appears to be
legally unsustainable, non-corroborated by a lawful rationale and
is, 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 is warranted.
17.5) That 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.
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. Opinio juris
meaning that a presumption must be grounded in evidence rather
than conjecture. However, no such substantial evidences are
presented by the respondents herein.
17.6) 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. The independent medical
opinion provided by the JLN Hospital doctor is in favor of the
petitioner’s medical fitness. The opinion is not rebutted by the
review board, thus strengthening the petitioner’s position that
there is no medical reason to reject her. Withal, it is noteworthy
that it was the respondents who have directed/advised the
petitioner to seek an opinion from an independent Doctor.
Consequently, the fact is evident from the contents of paragraph
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (12 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
no. 5 of the reply filed by the respondents and the annexed
documents, placed at page no. 199-200 of the petition.
17.7) Nonetheless, the petitioner was previously declared
medically fit during an earlier selection process carried out by the
Border Security Force (BSF), after considering her birthmark
(Annexure-8). 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.
17.8) The ratio enunciated in Ashok Dukiya (supra) directly
addressed the issue of medical disqualification due to a birthmark.
In that case, the review medical board did not provide justifiable
reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application, and the court
found the rejection to be arbitrary. Therefore, this judgment is on
point and supports the petitioner’s case. It also referenced the
equivalent guidelines for medical disqualification (Clause-6), which
are inapplicable in the petitioner’s case, as they pertain to a
different condition (Navaur syndrome) which is not relevant to the
petitioner’s condition.
17.9) All the same, the judgment of Ashok Dukya (Supra) is
not assailed/no appeal is preferred qua the same the by judgment
debtors therein therefore, it has attained the force of law (stare
decisis). Given that the judgment is not challenged, it binds the
parties and forms the basis for resolving similar issues, as that in
the present matter.
17.10) It can also be noted that the advertisement was issued
vis-à-vis the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (13 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
(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.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
18. Ergo, in précis it can be noted that the petitioner’s case
appears to be resilient; that the medical rejection and rejection by
the respondents is based on speculative presumptions and does
not meet the threshold of legal justification; that the independent
medical opinion, which supports the petitioner’s medical fitness, is
not rebutted, and the prior declaration of medical fitness in an
earlier BSF recruitment process further reinforces the petitioner’s
entitlement to consideration; that the petitioner has also
demonstrated that she is not disqualified by the relevant medical
guidelines or by any other factor that would preclude her from
being considered for this post, especially given her current non-
combat role in the CAPFs.
19. In light of the above considerations and upon a careful
review of the facts, legal principles, and judicial precedents, it is
hereby directed that the petitioner is 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.
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.
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7834] (14 of 14) [CW-17749/2024]
20. In light of these factors, it is ordered that 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. Further, the petitioner
should be given service benefits that are commensurate with
those granted to other candidates selected in the same batch, as
her exclusion from consideration was based on an unjustifiable
and erroneous medical disqualification; within an upper limit of
four weeks from the date of passing of this judgment, if the
petitioner is otherwise meritorious and eligible.
21. In view of the foregoing considerations and findings,
the present petition is hereby allowed. There shall be no orders as
to costs. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of in
accordance with the present judgment.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
CHANDAN /
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:53:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)