Rejection of a candidate based on Keloid formation requires evidence of interference with equipment; mere presence is insufficient under recruitment guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

The petitioner before this Court applied pursuant to a selection process initiated by the CRPF for appointment to the post of Constable/Driver. The petitioner claims to be qualified for being selected for appointment to the said post.

2. During the process of selection, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the CRPF authority and he was found to be suffering from “Multiple Keloid Chest and Cardiac Murmur”. Consequently, the petitioner was not found fit to be appointed to the post of Constable (Driver).

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of petitioner that during the medical examination, the Medical Board of the CRPF referred the petitioner for an opinion before the Dermatology Department of GMCH. The Dermatology department returned a finding that “the patient is presenting currently with Keloid on his chest and the current lesion is not contagious and does not hamper his daily activities”. Notwithstanding that it is submitted that the petitioner’s case was rejected by the Review Medical board and he was found to be unfit because of the presence of Keloid over chest. The Review Medical Board also recorded the findings of the Cardiology department of GMCH that he was found fit in terms of the cardiology opinion.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that this rejection of the petitioner by the Medical Board on the purported medical condition is contrary to the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Forces and Assam Rifles. He submits that this guideline is also followed for this recruitment purpose by the CRPF authorities. Referring to clause XII (9), he submits that in the conditions which are listed for rejection of any prospective candidates for appointment during the selection process Sl No. 9 refers to “Keloid formation”. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that this Keloid formation can be a ground for rejection only if the same interferes with the proper wearing of combatisedequipment. He submits that no such finding is recorded in the Review Medical Board and the authorities had rejected it merely because of the presence of Keloid formation. It is submitted that such conclusion by the Medical Board is contrary to the guidelines for recruitment medical examination. He therefore submits the writ petition be allowed and the authorities be directed to recommend the petitioner for appointment as he does not fall within the criteria prescribed at Clause-XII (9) of the guidelines for Recruitment Medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles.

5. Ms. Baruah, learned CGC on the other hand submits that the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. She has referred to various averments made in the affidavit to submit that the medical criteria for a civilian and for a member of the CRPF or CAPF are different. The medical criteria necessary for recruitment in CRPF or other CAPF are very specific and they are specified in the guidelines. These guidelines merely provide instances where a Medical Officer can opine the fitness or the unworthiness of a candidate on medical grounds during the process of recruitment. She submits that there is no challenge to the constitution of the Medical Board and the Medical Board had duly examined him and had taken into consideration the opinions rendered by the other doctors of the civil hospital, including that of the GMCH and had therefore opined that the petitioner is found to be unfit to be appointed in the post of Constable/Driver in view of his medical condition as prescribed at Clause XII(9).

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings as well as the guidelines, it is seen that the guideline prescribes particulars of physical deformities which may be considered grounds for rejection for disability for a prospective candidate for appointment into an Armed Force like that of CRPF upon such opinion bei