Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Orders Reconsideration Of CAPF Candidate’s Case
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ordered the reconsideration of the candidature of a CAPF aspirant after noting that no reasons were assigned as to how the birthmark on his face could impede the function/training of a Constable (GD) in case of his selection
The petitioner sought quashment of a detailed medical examination report/Memorandum whereby his candidature for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was declared ‘unfit’ for having ‘port wine stain’ (birth mark) on his face. A plea was also sought to quash the Review Medical Examination Report.
The Single Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary said, “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.”
Advocate Sheikh Altaf Hussain represented the Petitioner while Dy. SGI Vishal Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner having ‘A’ Class NCC certificate and also winning the District Level Football tournament and otherwise qualified, had applied online for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces. The petitioner qualified for the written examination as well as the Physical Standard Test (PST) and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). When he was subjected to a Detailed Medical Examination, the board declared him ‘unfit’ for having ‘port wine stain’ on his face, and on appearing before the Review Medical Board, his candidature was also rejected on the same ground. The petitioner assailed the rejection on the ground that ‘port wine stain’ on the face of the petitioner is a birth mark, which does not amount to skin disease or leprosy as defined in para XII of Guideline No.9 of Revised Guidelines 2021.
Reasoning
On perusal of the impugned medical certificates declaring the petitioner as unfit for service in Central Armed Police Forces, the Bench found that the Boards in their detailed medical examination as well as review medical examination had shown the petitioner as unfit for ‘Port Wine Stain’ on his face, but had not explained as to under what conditions he could be declared as unfit. “The respondents have not filed any record of examination along with their reply and the cryptic observations of the Boards are just to declare the petitioner as unfit merely having ‘Port Wine Stain’ on his face”, it said.
It was noted that the medical opinion formulated vide the impugned Medical Examination reports has not shown the unsuitability of the petitioner, and on the basis of the impugned reports, the contentions raised by the respondents couldn’t be countenanced.
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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”, the Bench stated.
The High Court thus allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to convene a Revised Medical Board and re-examine the petitioner. “…if he is found fit to perform the duties of a Constable (GD) in terms of Revised Uniform Guidelines of 2021 for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs notified on 31.05.2021, and the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner be offered an appointment, if he is otherwise found qualified for appointment”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Anish Rajulia v. Union of India (Case No.: WP(C ) No.2744/2024)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Sheikh Altaf Hussain
Respondent: Dy. SGI Vishal Sharma
