‘Cannot Be Declared Medically Unfit Solely On Basis Of Birthmark’ J&K High Court Quashes Rejection of CAPF Aspirant
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the medical rejection of a CAPF aspirant declared unfit due to a congenital birthmark.
A bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary emphasised that congenital conditions like ‘Port Wine Stain’ cannot, by themselves, be grounds for medical disqualification unless accompanied by concrete medical reasoning demonstrating functional impairment.
In allowing his plea, the court observed,
“… this Court is of the opinion that the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected wrongly and arbitrarily on the basis of the impugned Medical Reports issued by the Detailed Medical Examination Board and Review Medical Examination Board without stating any reasons as to how the birthmark which has been described as „Port Wine Stain‟ on the face of the petitioner could impede the function/training of a Constable (GD) in case of his selection”
Background:
The case pertained to Anish Rajulia, a 22½-year-old resident of Samba, who had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). A promising candidate with an ‘A’ Grade NCC certificate and accolades in district-level football tournaments, Anish successfully cleared the written exam followed by the Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and document verification.
However, the Detailed Medical Board and subsequently the Review Medical Board declared him medically unfit citing a ‘Port Wine Stain’ , a vascular birthmark on the right side of his face. However, No functional impediment was recorded or explained in either assessment.
Anish, through Advocate Sheikh Altaf Hussain, approached the High Court seeking quashment of the rejection, arguing that the decision was in violation of the Revised Uniform Guidelines dated 31.05.2021 and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
Courts Observations:
Justice Chowdhary undertook a comprehensive examination of the pleadings, medical records, and the applicable guidelines. He noted that Clause 6(20) of the 2021 Guidelines permits disqualification only if a congenital abnormality impedes the efficient discharge of training or duties. Similarly, Clause XII(B)(8) disqualifies skin conditions such as nevi or vascular tumors only if they interfere with function or are exposed to constant irritation, the court pointed.
Critically, the Court found that both the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review Medical Board had merely stated “Port Wine Stain” as the reason for unfitness without explaining how it impaired the petitioner’s duties as a Constable (GD). The respondent authorities failed to furnish any examination records or detailed justifications in their response.
The Court observed,
“The cryptic observations of the Boards merely declare the petitioner as unfit due to ‘Port Wine Stain’ on his face, without explaining how the condition impairs his duties. The opinion lacks legal justification under the 2021 Guidelines and appears to have been rendered in a mechanical and arbitrary manner.”
The Court also noted procedural anomalies most glaringly, that the Review Medical Certificate dated 09.10.2024 bore signatures dated 12.10.2024, raising serious doubts about its authenticity and credibility.
“The certificate by the Review Medical Board stated to have been issued on 09.10.2024, however, has been signed/attested by the Members of the Board on 12.10.2024, which fact also renders the credibility of the certificate doubtful, prepared in a casual manner”, the court remarked.
Justice Chowdhary referenced Ashok Dukiya v. Union of India, wherein Rajasthan High Court quashed rejection due to a birthmark (‘Congenital Melanolytic Nevus’) citing absence of reasons linking the condition to job incapacity.
The Court held that Anish Rajulia’s rejection from service was “wrongful, arbitrary, and casual,” warranting judicial intervention. It stated,
“The medical opinion formulated in the impugned reports does not show unsuitability. The candidature of the petitioner seems to have been illegally and arbitrarily rejected.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Detailed Medical Examination Report and the Review Medical Examination Report and directed the authorities to convene a Revised Medical Board within eight weeks of receipt of the judgment.
Case Title: Anish Rajulia Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)
