Medical disqualifications based on benign conditions must be grounded in substantial evidence; arbitrary decisions violate the right to equality under Article 14.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The nitty-gritty of the instant petition is that the respondent-Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement dated 24.11.2023 inviting applications for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Riffles. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied under the SC-Female category. Sequentially, the petitioner, completed the part-I registration of the online application form and appeared in the online examination held on 07.03.2024; wherein she had obtained 135.95 marks and the cut-off under the category in which the petitioner had applied was 119.16 marks.

2. Consecutively, the petitioner was called for PET/PST and DV/DME which was scheduled on 08.11.2024. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and she was declared unsuccessful/disqualified in PST due the following two reasons:

2.1 That the petitioner has a congenital melanocytic nevus (mark) on back.

2.2 That the report of Cardiomegaly (Chest X-Ray) was not as per the norms of the respondent-recruiting agency.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER:

3. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended that the petitioner, having undergone a medical evaluation by the designated medical board, was initially declared fit with respect to cardiomegaly. However, notwithstanding her medical fitness in relation to cardiomegaly, the petitioner was subsequently declared unfit for service based exclusively on the presence of a birthmark, which was deemed an impediment to her ability to perform her duties. Thence, it can be deduced that this assessment is incorrect and unjust, particularly when the medical opinions presented are carefully scrutinized.

4. It was further averred that the petitioner possesses a congenital melanocytic nevus, commonly referred to as a birthmark, which is present since birth. Nevertheless, a thorough medical opinion was sought by the concerned authorities to ascertain whether this condition could be deemed a medical impediment or otherwise. Moreover, the opinion rendered by an expert in dermatology, whose qualifications and expertise are beyond dispute, clearly states that the petitioner’s congenital melanocytic nevus is neither communicable nor contagious. It does not pose any risk to others by touch or air. Importantly, from a dermatological perspective, it can be noted that the petitioner is entirely fit for duty and this condition does not, in any way, impair her ability to perform the tasks required in her role.

5. Furthermore, it was contended that the expert dermatologist, whose opinion is documented in the petition, unequivocally confirms that the petitioner’s birthmark is a benign condition that does not affect her physical fitness. This opinion is grounded in established dermatological principles and is consistent with widely accepted medical practice. Notwithstanding the comprehensive and medically sound opinion provided by the dermatologist, the petitioner’s review medical board opinion, dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure-4), has unjustifiably declared her unfit based on the same congenital melanocytic nevus. The board's decision to declare the petitioner unfit is contrary to the clear medical evidence presented, and there appears to be no reasonable or rational basis for disregarding the specialized opinion of the expert in dermatology. Nonetheless, the board’s conclusion is not supported by any relevant medical rationale and fails to account for the expert’s findings regarding the petitioner’s overall physical fitness and ability to render the service allotted to her.

6. Learned counsel had laid emphasis on the aforementioned and had submitted that the birthmark located on the petitioner’s back is a purely cosmetic issue and, as such, does not affect her physical fitness or her ability to carry out the duties associated with her role. The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature based on this condition is not