##PAGE1##

09-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No.3

Subrata Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Bhattacharyya Appellate Side

AR(C)

WPA No.28523 of 2025

Sri Bittu Biswas

-vs-

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas …for the petitioner

Mr. Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee

Mr. Shaunak Ghosh …for the respondents

1. The petitioner participated for recruitment in

CAPF. He was declared medically unfit by the

Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Board. The

grounds for such declaration were 1) defective

distant vision in both eyes and 2) squint.

2. The petitioner had the option to apply for review

of the report of DME. The Review Medical

Examination (RME) Board found that the

petitioner had squint in the left eye.

3. Being aggrieved by such finding of the medical

boards, the petitioner got himself tested in a State

Government hospital where no squint was

detected. The petitioner again got himself tested

in AIIMS at Kalyani, where also squint could not

be detected.

4. The petitioner submits that as two of the

Government hospitals could not detect squint, the

medical examinations conducted by the DME

Board and the RME Board are faulty and

incorrect.

5. The petitioner relies on the judgment dated May

2

29, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.7254 of 2025 (arising out of

SLP(C) MP/13758 of 2025) – Divyanshu Singh vs.

The Union of India & Ors. – wherein the Hon’ble

Court directed the candidate to be tested by the

ophthalmologist of AIIMS to ascertain as to

whether the candidate was suffering from

glaucoma or not.

6. Relying on the report produced by the medical

board comprising of six Professors/ Assistant

Professors/ Associate Professors /Additional

Professors/Senior Technical Officer of

Ophthalmology, evidence of glaucoma could not

be found. Under such circumstances, the Court

directed the authority to call the candidate for

interview.

7. It has been contended that as squint could not be

detected at all by the doctors, accordingly, the

question of ascertaining the degree of squint

cannot and does not arise.

8. Prayer has been made for setting aside the finding

of the medical boards of the CAPF authority and

directing the authority to give appointment to the

petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the

prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted

that the medical boards clearly found that the

petitioner was suffering from mild squint in the

left eye and that he is unfit for the job.

10. The guidelines for recruitment of medical

examination have been placed before this Court.

One of the grounds for rejection is - any degree of

squint. It has further been submitted that as the

petitioner was detected with mild squint,

accordingly, he cannot be recruited.

3

11. I have heard the respective submissions advanced

by the learned counsels for the parties and have

perused the materials on record placed before this

Court.

12. The petitioner applied for recruitment in CAPF.

He was medically tested and examined by the

DME Board and also by the RME Board. Though

the DME Board found the petitioner to be unfit on

two grounds, the RME Board found the petitioner

unfit for on ground that is mild squint in the left

eye.

13. According to the guidelines for recruitment, any

degree of squint is a general ground for rejection

of the candidature.

14. Submission of the petitioner that he was tested by

the State Government hospital and thereafter by

AIIMS and no squint could be found will not come

to the aid of the petitioner. As the petitioner was

competing for recruitment in CAPF, observation of

the medical boards of the CAPF will be the

ultimate consideration.

15. Criteria of fitness required for appointment in

CAPF may differ from the fitness level of a civilian.

Squint of CAPF personnel is a ground for rejection

of his candidature. As one of the grounds for

rejection of the petitioner is mild squint,

accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for

appointment in CAPF, despite such observation of

the DME and RME Boards, cannot be accepted.

16. On a perusal of the general grounds for rejection,

it a