When medical boards reject candidates based on conditions not clearly disqualifying under guidelines, and where conflicting medical opinions exist, the board must provide specific findings justifying the rejection. Courts may order re-examination to ensure transparency and fairness in the recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.

2. The petitioner before this Court had submitted his candidature in response to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authority for appointment in the post of Constable (GD) under the Central Armed Police Forces. The petitioner had successfully cleared the written test and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST). However, on medical examination by the DME i.e. the Detailed Medical Examination undertaken by the BSF authorities, the writ petitioner was declared unfit due to “infected wart left ear lobule”. This report was issued on 25.11.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was medically evaluated by a private hospital namely Hayat Hospital, by the BSF, where the medical advice was rendered to take an opinion from a Dermatologist. Consequently, the Dermatological opinion was undertaken from the Apollo Clinic from Dr. Arun Agarwal, MD, where the Dermatologist given an opinion “fit for job”. Notwithstanding that, the Review Medical Examination Board sustained the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination and considered the petitioner unfit because of infected wart on the left ear lobule. The said report was issued on 29.11.2025. The final opinion in the Review Medical Examination Board-I’s report was that he was considered unfit due to infected wound on the left ear lobule. Although, the antibiotics are prescribed, the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted, hence he was found to be not acceptable.

3. The petitioner approached this Court challenging his said rejection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this ground for rejection is not specified in the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in CRPF which was circulated by the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021.

4. The respondents have contested the case by filing their affidavit. In their affidavit it is stated that since there was an infection on the “left ear lobule” and the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted, therefore, petitioner's case was rejected.

5. It is submitted by the learned CGC that there is no infirmity in the rejection as the same was done as per the procedure prescribed.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused.

7. The revised guidelines for the medical examination have been carefully perused. The guidelines which have been placed before the Court also did not reflect specifically the instances under which the cases like the petitioner can be considered to be unfit and unsuitable for recruitment. What is seen from the pleadings is that there is an independent medical opinion by a dermatologist from the Apollo Clinic where antibiotics have been prescribed and there is an opinion that he is fit for job.

8. In view of this independent opinion it is seen that there are contradictory opinions rendered by the civilian doctors and the doctors of the Medical Board by the BSF authorities.

9. The only ground for rejection of the petitioner is that the outcome of the treatment prescribed on the date of examination cannot be predicted and therefore, the petitioner was declared to be unfit.

10. During the course of the hearing the learned CGC has referred to the guidelines more particularly the clause No. XII (B)(7) to submit that such guidelines do provide certain situations under which cases like the writ petitioner are to be rejected during the Medical Examination. The said cl