$~74

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 18902/2025, CM APPL. 78692/2025 & CM APPL.

78693/2025

AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Mr. Sameer Khan, Mr. Harshit Aggarwal and Mr.

Pratham Kindra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ashish Goyal, SPC with Mr. Kautilya, GP and Mr. Anurag Singhal,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 16.12.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, who applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces, “CAPFs” hereinafter. The said exam was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission on 12 February 2025. Consequent to his clearing earlier rounds of selection, a Detailed Medical Examination2 of the petitioner took place on 27 November 2025. The DME found the petitioner to be unfit for recruitment as Constable in the CAPFs as

he had Brachymetatarsia in the fourth toe of his right foot.

2. The petitioner, on an application, was thereafter examined by a Review Medical Board, “RME” hereinafter which also declared him to be unfit on the ground that he had Brachymetatarsia in the fourth toe of his right foot on 2 December 2025.

3. On the ground that an outside medical opinion, obtained by the petitioner, had found him to be fit, and that, in the medical examination of the petitioner which have been conducted for the previous year in 2024, no unfitness was found, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying that the DME report dated 29 November 2025 and the RME report dated 2 December 2025 be quashed and set aside and that his candidature for the post of Constable (GD) in the CAPFs be further processed.

4. We have dealt with a similar controversy recently in Jyoti Panwar v. Union of India⁴. The petitioner in that case had also applied for the post of Constable/GD (Mahila). She was also disqualified on the ground that she had Brachymetatarsia in the fourth toe of her foot, consistently by the DME and the RME. The petitioner, Jyoti Panwar, had contended, before us, that the abnormality in the fourth toe of her foot would not impede her from performing her duties as Constable. In this context, she had drawn our attention to the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for recruitment in CAPFs, NSG and AR, which govern the

4 Judgment dated 3 December 2025 in WP (C) 8443/2024

said selections.

5. On perusing the said guidelines, we had found the contention of the petitioner to be correct to the extent that Brachymetatarsia, in every case, would not create a functional hurdle in the performance of the duties by the candidate concerned.

6. Resultantly, we had directed the petitioner, Jyoti Panwar, to be re-examined by a Medical Board to be constituted by the Army Hospital (Research and Referral), “R&R Hospital” hereinafter. We may reproduce, for ready reference, paras 3 to 12 of the decision in Jyoti Panwar, thus:

“3. Mr. Akash Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the applicable “Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG and AR⁶”, which admittedly govern the selection. Apropos deformities of the toes, Mr. Akash Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the guidelines stipulate thus :

“B. Foot and ankle *****

(b) Presence of deformities of the toes (acquired or congenital, including, but not limited to conditions such as hallux valgus, hallux varus, hallux rigidus, claw toe(s), overriding toe(s), (that prevents the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running, or jumping, are disqualifying.”

4. Mr. Mohan has also drawn our attention to Clause D, which reads thus :

“D. General.

(a) Presence of deformities, disease, or chronic joint pain of pelvic region, thigh, lower leg, ankle and/ or foot that have interfered with function such a degree as to preven