The court upheld the stringent physical fitness standards for armed and police forces and the medical disqualification based on the Guidelines, emphasizing the expertise of the forces' doctors in assessing fitness.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to set aside the result of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME') dated 30.07.2019 as well as the decision of the Review Medical Board (in short, 'RMB') dated 08.12.2020, by virtue of which the petitioner was declared medically unfit for appointment as Constable (GD) in the Central armed Police Forces (in short, 'CaPFs') on the ground of 'undescended testis'. In the alternative, the petitioner prays that Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and (XIII)(3)(e) of the 'Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central armed Police Forces and assam Rifles: Revised Guidelines as on May 2015' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Guidelines'), to the extent that they disqualify a candidate with 'undescended testis', be declared unconstitutional as being violative of article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) under the Sports Quota in the respondent no. 2, the petitioner preferred an application for being considered for the said post. The petitioner is a national-level Kabaddi player and has participated in several National, State and Zonal-level Kabaddi events.

3. at the DME stage, vide order dated 30.07.2019, the petitioner was declared medically unfit on the ground of 'undescended testis'. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the finding of the DME and underwent an examination before the RMB. The RMB, vide report dated 08.12.2020, found the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground of 'left sided undescended testes'. The conclusion of the undescended testis was arrived on the basis of the following observation made by the RMB:

'c. Left testis not present in scrotum

d. Left testis not clinically palpable in left Inguinal region/abdomen.'

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is not one of 'undescended testis' but, in fact, of no testis. He submits that the left testis of the petitioner was not found in either the inguinal canal or in the abdomen. In this regard, he places reliance on the report dated 25.03.2021 from the PGI, Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on an article by the Boston Children's Hospital to submit that undescended testis is a medical condition where even though the testicle has been formed, it has not moved into the proper position. He submits that in the case of the petitioner, as was corroborated by the examination report of PGI, Chandigarh dated 25.03.2021, the petitioner's left testis was not visualised in the left scrotal sac, inguinal canal and lower abdomen. The left spermatic cord of the petitioner was not visualised as well. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was of 'no left testis' and not of 'undescended testis'. He submits that therefore, the report of the DME and RMB are incorrect.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Guidelines in Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and Clause 3(e) of Part XIII prescribe only 'undescended testis' as a disqualification for appointment to CaPFs and a case of 'no testis' is not a disqualification. He submits that therefore; the petitioner has been wrongly declared as disqualified for appointment.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the alternative, Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and (XIII)(3)(e) of the Guidelines be declared unconstitutional as they have become archaic, obsolete and completely arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons with 'undescended testis' are otherwise medically and physically fit and completely efficient to discharge their training as well as duty, but are debarred from joining the services due to the aforementioned clauses; making the said Clauses of the Guidelines violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitu