Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Soumitra Saikia, J
Pappu Biswas Son of Khagen biswas – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 th
Rejection of a candidate based on Keloid formation requires evidence of interference with equipment; mere presence is insufficient under recruitment guidelines.
The court upheld that mere presence of keloids does not guarantee fitness for service; operational risks and examiners' expert opinions carry significant weight.
Medical disqualifications based on benign conditions must be grounded in substantial evidence; arbitrary decisions violate the right to equality under Article 14.
Where appointment order has been issued and the petitioner had accepted the same by reporting for duty, subsequent medical examination report cannot make the petitioner ineligible for appointment.
A court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with medical opinions rendered by competent authorities unless there is a gross error or illegality in their assessment.
The decisions of a Review Medical Board in recruitment processes are final and can only be challenged under exceptional circumstances, such as procedural violations or malafides.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
