Dausa (Raj.) v. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Home

Judgment

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. Deputy Inspector General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), East Block-07, Level-4, Sector 01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

3. Presiding Officer, Detailed Medical Examination Board For Rectt. Of Constable (Tech/ Tradesman/ Pioneer/Min)-2023 at GC-II, CRPF, Ajmer (Raj.)

4. Presiding Officer, Review Medical Examination Board For Rectt. Of Constable (Tech/ Tradesman/ Pioneer/Min)-2023 At GC-II, CRPF, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/08/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents to consider the eligibility of the petitioner by declaring the action of the respondents treating the petitioner unfit for the post of Constable Tradesman (Daftri) in review medical on the ground of Keloid on Right Forearm, as illegal and malicious.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement dated 15.03.2023, whereby applications were [2025:RJ-JP:33773] (2 of 5) [CW-3707/2025] invited from all eligible persons for recruitment on the post of Constable (Technical/Tradesman) in CRPF. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the process. He qualified the written test, physical efficiency, and trade test. In documents verification also, nothing was found against him. His name also found place at suitable stage in the merit list. However, prior to issuing appointment order, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination (DME) wherein only on account of indicating one large scar mark on his saluting limb, his candidature was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the matter was referred for further consultation to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital before re-examination by the Review Medical, the Review Medical Board declared the petitioner unfit by holding the said scar as keloid. Whereas, such a scar has taken place only on account of removal of tattoo cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be hurdle in discharging duties of Constable Tradesman (Daftri).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the consideration by the Review Medical Board is totally inconsistent with the opinion given by Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, and the opinion given by the Civil Hospital must prevail where the question of expert opinion comes into play.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the arbitrary opinion given by the Medical Board, and further confirmed by the Review Medical Board in respect of the petitioner, who has secured proper place in merit, would ruin his entire future, and the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate rights. Hence, by ignoring such opinion by the Review Medical [2025:RJ-JP:33773] (3 of 5) [CW-3707/2025] Board and treating the scar as a routine mark on the forearm of the petitioner, directions be given for appointment of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the case of the petitioner may be directed to consider in case any seat is lying vacant.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the writ petition by stating that recruitment in disciplined forces like CRPF takes place strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even with regard to constitution of Medical Board and examination of candidates appearing for recruitment, guidelines have been framed in detail and the authorities are under an obligation to follow the same.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Part XII of the guidelines deals with examination for skin disease and leprosy and sub-clause B of Part-XII lays down other conditions which are to be considered for rejection. Point No.9 thereof includes that keloid formation, if the tendency is marked or interferes with the proper wearing combatised equipment, can be a ground for disqualifying the candidate.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the Review Medical Board before taking any final opinion has considered the opinion of dermatologist of Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, who clearly opined that there was a keloid of about 8*1 c.m. on the right forearm of the petitioner. The Medical Board was [2025:RJ-JP:33773] (4 of 5) [CW-3707/2025] also of the opinion that any injury in future, while performing combatised duties at high tendencies for keloid formation, which in turn interferes with the proper wearing of combatised equipment. Hence, after properly considering all the facts, physical and clinical conditions, decision has been taken by the Review Medical Board.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents further adds that the opinion of the Review Medical Board, for the purpose of medical fitness of the candidate, shall prevail over any opinion given by any civil doctor or hospital. As a candidate, if appointed, is required to work with CRPF in special conditions, therefore, the decision with regard to recruitment of candidates with specified physical and medical conditions can be decided as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the action taken by the respondents is strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned decision taken by the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Bhupendra Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15822/2024), wherein, in similar conditions on account of some skin problem, the candidate was disqualified, and after examining the guidelines issued by the respondents, it was held that the standards of medical conditions and medical fitness in disciplined forces with arms are much higher and stricter than the standards applied in any civil services.

13. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and examined the record. [2025:RJ-JP:33773] (5 of 5) [CW-3707/2025]

14. The issue in hand can be adjudicated only on the basis of opinion given by the medical experts. In the instant case, as per the advertisement as well as the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is clear that prior to appointment, every candidate seeking appointment is required to undergo a physical and medical test, which shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the guidelines. In the instant case, this Court finds that after examining all the aspects including the opinion given by the dermatologist, the Review Medical Board was also of the opinion that the keloid formation may put a hurdle in wearing the combatised equipments and therefore, no interference can be made in the opinion of the Review Medical Board.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. DAKSH/51 (ANAND SHARMA),J