Back
No Third Strike: J&K High Court Shields CAPF Medical Boards from Judicial Overreach
In a ruling that reinforces the ironclad finality of expert medical assessments in high-stakes security recruitments, the has dismissed a by Younis Ali, who sought a fresh medical review for his Constable (GD) candidacy in the . Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that courts must defer to Review Medical Boards unless clear or taint the process.
Clearance to Controversy: The Recruitment Rollercoaster
The saga began with a advertisement on , calling for Constable (GD) posts in CAPFs, , and Rifleman (GD) in . Younis Ali applied, aced the Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and document verification, only to stumble at the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on . Diagnosed with myopia, squint, and knock knee, he was deemed unfit—but granted a review chance.
On , the Review Medical Board cleared myopia and knock knee but stuck with the squint diagnosis in his right eye, sealing his rejection. Armed with a clean bill from Jammu's —"no evidence of Squint"—Ali petitioned for an independent third board, alleging casual examinations by CAPF doctors.
Petitioner's Pushback vs. Respondents' Red Line
Ali's counsel, , argued the CAPF exams were sloppy and contradicted by specialist evidence, branding the rejection arbitrary. Why trust a fleeting board glance over a detailed hospital report?
The Union of India and others, via and , fired back: No third exam exists under policy. Citing a 2005 memo (U.O. No. I-45023/10/2005-Pers-II), they stressed no appeals lie against Review Boards. Fitness is non-negotiable for forces; experienced specialists' verdict stands.
Precedents Draw the Line: Courts Can't Play Doctor
Justice Dhar dissected the clash: Can a lone outpatient card trump a three-specialist Review Board? Leaning on wisdom, he invoked Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. (2020 ADJ Online 0073), where courts limited interference in statutory medical assessments, warning against private reports upending boards. Echoing Diwakar Paswan v. State of U.P. (2021 (0) Supreme (All) 47), he noted opinions aren't lightly disturbed absent or rule breaches—medical fitness demands expert deference, not judicial re-weigh-ins.
The 2005 MHA directive sealed it: Review Boards are conclusive. No procedural foul or bad faith alleged here; a single doctor's note doesn't suffice.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The scope of interference in matters relating to assessment of fitness by a Medical Board constituted under the statutory rules in exercise of powers under, in our opinion, would be extremely limited."
"Medical fitness is a subject best left for determination by experts and should not be lightly interfered with unless it be shown to be contrary to the standards prescribed or otherwise be liable to be assailed on other."
"Generally the Review Medical Board’s decision in CAPFs selection process is final and cannot be subjected to further review or re-examination by the courts except in exceptional circumstances such asor."
These excerpts, drawn from the judgment and aligned with reporting in 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) , highlight the bench's restraint.
Final Verdict: Petition Grounded, Process Protected
"There is hardly any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed,"
ruled Justice Dhar on
The decision safeguards recruitment timelines, barring endless medical appeals that could paralyze CAPF hiring. Aspiring constables now know: Clear PST/PET? Great. Fail review review? Game over—barring proven irregularities. It cements expert finality, urging candidates to front-load flawless fitness proofs.
