A candidate's medical history, specifically surgeries performed within six months prior to recruitment, is crucial in determining eligibility for selection in Central Armed Police Forces.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, who applied for the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P8 and P9 and to direct the respondents to include the petitioner in the selection process for appointment as Constable (GD) in CAPFs, SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025.

2. The petitioner states that he belongs to OBC Community and responded to the notification for appointment to the post of Constable. The petitioner participated in the selection process. The petitioner was successful in other examinations. The petitioner cleared physical test, as is evident from Ext.P7.

3. However, during the medical examination, the Board found that there is Scrotal Swelling (Right) along stitches present (freshly operated). The petitioner was subjected to Review Medical Examination. The Review Medical Examination also found that there is Scrotal Swelling (Right) along with stitches present (freshly operated). The petitioner has, therefore, been ousted from the recruitment process.

4. The petitioner would submit that Clause

5(o) of Ext.P1 guidelines would show that the candidate should have no inguinal, scrotal swelling. Ext.P1 also indicate that for the defect for which the candidate has been declared unfit should be examined thoroughly and the findings must be got supported by proper investigation reports, if applicable.

5. The petitioner submits that Ext.P1 guidelines have been revised as per Ext.P2 revised uniform guidelines. Clause 6(c) of Ext.P2 guidelines would indicate that the defect for which candidate has been declared unfit should be examined thoroughly and the findings must be supported by proper investigation reports, if applicable. In the cases of rejection in review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of Government Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Government approved Private Medical Centers, whichever and wherever applicable.

6. The petitioner also pointed out that Clause

8 of Ext.P2 guidelines indicate that in review medical examination, candidates are subjected to require concerned investigations wherever and whenever applicable and rejection merely on clinical findings is to be avoided. 7. The petitioner argued that what has been done on the body of the petitioner is only an excision and it cannot be treated as a surgery so as to disqualify the petitioner from the selection. The petitioner further pointed out that 65 is the cut of mark prescribed in the examination and the petitioner has scored a high mark of 80. The petitioner is therefore entitled and eligible for recruitment. The respondents have acted illegally and excess of the powers conferred on them. The guidelines relied on by the respondents will not justify their action.

8. Deputy Solicitor General of India entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and the additional 6^th respondent and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that pursuant to the petitioner's consent, he underwent Review Medical Examination on 22.11.2025 before a duly constituted Medical Officers' Board. After a thorough clinical examination, the Medical Officers of RME Board noticed that stitches were intact on the scrotum and there were signs of inflammation during the Review Medical Examination. The petitioner has also submitted a copy of the diagnosis report of the institute confirming that he underwent excision of “Epididymal Cyst” on 15.10.2025.

9. DSGI pointed out that as per Clause 11(4)

of the order dated 20.05.2015, “Abdominal/pelvic surgeries involving opening of peritoneum, repairs of Herniae, varicocele surgeries,