SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46650


2025:MHC:1655 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.07.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD)No.26347 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.22326 of 2024 R.Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, (Recruitment Branch), East Block-07, Level – IV, Sector -01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF Group Centre, Aavadi, Chennai.
3.The Presiding Officer, Review Medical Board, Recruitment of Constable (GD)-2024, Centre-GC CRPF, Aavadi, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned review medical examination report dated 07.10.2024 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the third respondent to review/re-conduct the medical examination and select the petitioner's candidature, without reference to the above alleged defect, for the post in the Central Armed Police Forces in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 24.11.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi Central Government Standing Counsel

The court emphasized that recruitment decisions must consider whether a medical condition affects job performance, highlighting the importance of natural justice and reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment in Central Armed Police Forces - Review Medical Examination - Petitioner challenged the review medical examination report declaring him unfit due to polydactyl on left hand, asserting violation of natural justice and misclassification of his condition - Court emphasized adherence to guidelines allowing acceptance of minor defects and the necessity of evaluating the efficiency impact of such defects on duties - Court quashed the impugned report and directed a re-examination. (Paras 4, 18, 20)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles - The failure to provide an opportunity for hearing before declaring a candidate unfit constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating reconsideration of the decision. (Paras 4, 6, 20)

(C) Recruitment Guidelines - The Medical Examination Board must evaluate whether a candidate's defect affects their operational efficiency, as per the Revised Guidelines for Medical Examination. (Paras 5, 18)

(D) Reasonable Accommodation - The court recognized the need for reasonable accommodations for candidates with disabilities, underscoring the importance of not discriminating based on medical conditions that do not impair job performance. (Paras 18, 20) (E)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned Review Medical Examination report quashed, and a direction issued for re-examination.

ORDER

The impugned review medical examination report dated 07.10.2024 issued by the third respondent is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the third respondent to review / re-conduct the medical examination and select him without reference to the above alleged defect, for the post in the Central Armed Police Forces in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 24.11.2023.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

2.1. The petitioner has completed his Under Graduation in the branch of Science. He applied for the post of 'Constables' called for by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in various Central Police Force, such as Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) etc., through notification dated 24.11.2023 and participated in the recruitment process, which consists of Computer Based Examination, Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Medical Examination and Document Verification. Since I have been qualified in the computer based examination, I have undergone Certificate Verification, Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test and finally sent to Medical Examination, where I have been rejected on the ground of polydactyl on left hand. Further, I was sent to Review Medical Examination on 07.10.2024 and thereafter, the impugned order of non selection i.e., impugned review medical examination report dated 07.10.2024 was issued by the third respondent.

3. Assailing the impugned Review Medical Examination report dated 07.10.2024, the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Review Medical Examination report has been issued by the third respondent without providing any opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that the petitioner was declared to be unfit due to polydactyl, whereas there is no extra digit on the radial side of the hand of the petitioner, but however, the left hand thumb of the petitioner is only unsized, which cannot be categorized as 'polydactyl' and hence, the impugned Review Medical Examination report dated 07.10.2024 of the third respondent, is unsustainable and to be reviewed. He further submitted that the petitioner had already participated in the selection process conducted for the year 2022-2023, in which, Physical Test and Medical Examination were conducted on 03.05.2023 and the petitioner was declared medically fit which implies that the present Review Medical Examination report impugned in this petition, is fallacious.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pinpointed the revised uniformed guidelines for Review Medical Examination in the CAPFs and Assam Rifles dated 31.05.2021 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby the said guidelines was issued for Review Medical Board. In which, Clause 7 of the guideline gives discretion to the Medical Examination Board (MEB), in case of minor acceptable defects, the MEB can accept the candidature, if the defect will not in any way affect the efficiency of the candidate. The said Clause is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

Clause 7:-Minor Acceptable Defects Acceptance of candidates suffering from trifling defects:-

Candidates presenting with mild degree of the following defects may be accepted, as specified in the relevant paras:-

a)Mild Flat Feet-If the joints of tarsus are flexible and the arch reappears on standing on tip toes.

b)Mild Knock-Knee-With Inter-malleoli distance 5 cms or less.

c)Mild Bow legs-With inter-condylar distance 7cms or less.

d)Mild Hammer toes-If there are no painful corns or bursae on the dorsum of the toes.

e)Mild Varicocele-If veins are palpable after valsalvamanoeveour, otherwise invisible.

f)Slight stammering-If stammering appears after 4-4 sentences.

g)Healed tympanic membrane perforation.

h)Presen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top