Madras High Court
R.Balamurugan vs The Director General on 15 July, 2025
2025:MHC:1655
W.P.(MD).No.26347 of 2024
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
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.26347 of 2024
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
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)Presence of wax in ears without hearing
defect.
i)Mild and moderate DNS with both nasal
airways patent may not be rejected.
j)Bilateral Hypertrophy of inferior turbinate
with patent airway.
k)Only prominence of veins in the lower
limbs to be accepted.
l)Loss of only soft tissue of terminal
phalanx of little finger of one or both hands is to
be accepted.
m)Candidates with carrying angle upto 20
degree may be accepted if the same is not
associated with abnormally of elbow joint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
n)Only because of tilting of pelvis or
drooping of shoulder may not be rejected unless
it is associated with some specific
disease/disability.
o)Cervical rib without any functional
disability.
p)Only tremors without any organic cause.
q)Healed trachoma without residual gross
deformity and no impaired vision.
r)Report of the radiologist must have
clinical co-relation before rejection.
s)Any other slight defects which in the
opinion of the Recruiting Medical Officer will not
interfere with efficiency of candidate as a soldier
in future.
He submitted that the third respondent in view of the above Clause
ought to have considered the case of the petitioner herein, as to
whether the defect pointed out by the MEB will in any way affect the
efficiency of the candidate in discharging his duties.
6. In furtherance, the learned counsel drew the attention of this
Court to the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
have issued Revised Uniformed Guidelines for Review Medical
Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles dated
31.05.2021, whereby the guideline issued for Review Medical Board
under Clause 7 gives discretion to the Medical Examination Board, in
case of minor acceptable defects, the Medical Examination Board can
accept the candidature, if the defect will not in any way affect the
efficiency of the candidate, whereas the third respondent has not stated
as to whether the defect would affect the efficiency in discharging the
function in the impugned Review Medical Examination report. Hence,
the learned counsel prays this Court to direct the third respondent to
review / re-conduct the Medical Examination by quashing the impugned
Review Medical Examination report dated 07.10.2024.
7. Contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contended that the
averments made by the petitioner in regard to the selection to the post
of 'Constables' conducted by the Staff Selection Commission 2022-23
was absolutely false as the petitioner had only cleared the Written
Examination, Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test but not
subjected to detailed Medical Examination as he was not eligible. He
also contended that the petitioner appeared for selection process as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
notification dated 24.11.2023, where he has cleared the Computer
Based Written Examination, Physical Standard Test and Physical
Efficiency Test and when he was subjected to the detailed Medical
Examination, he was declared unfit as 'polydactyl' was noticed in his left
hand and prominent dilate veins noted in both lower limbs. He further
continued that as per the Selection Rules, the petitioner was offered a
chance of Review Medical Examination for which he has given his
consent to appear before the MEB on 05.10.2024. Thereafter, he was
subjected to X-ray and Doppler Scan and the report was submitted on
07.10.2024, in which he was declared as 'unfit' due to polydactyl left
hand thumb.
8. At this juncture, the learned Central Government Standing
Counsel highlighted the Revised Rules and Guidelines framed by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as on May 2015 and the
Revised Official Memorandum dated 31.05.2021. He further contended
that in the revised guidelines as per Clause 6 (27), polydactyl in hand /
feet is a ground for 'rejection'. He submitted that since the petitioner is
having polydactyl left hand, he was declared as 'unfit' in the Detailed
Medical Examination which was also confirmed by the Review Medical
Examination Board consisting of experts based on the test report of X-
ray and Doppler Scan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
9. Furthermore, he brought to the notice of this Court that it is
apparent that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity for the
Detailed Medical Examination, as well as for the Review Medical
Examination, before passing of the impugned order of rejection and also
submitted that the Review Medical Examination has been conducted
strictly following the guidelines issued by the Government of India for
Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Police Forces and Assam
Rifles. He further contended that the petitioner's averment in regard to
the fact that no opportunity was granted to him before issuance of the
impugned Review Medical Examination report dated 07.10.2024, is
unsustainable and bad in the eye of law, as the Review Medical
Examination was conducted on receipt of his consent as per the Revised
Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
10. In continuing his arguments, the learned Central Government
Standing counsel urged that the claim of the petitioner that the third
respondent has neither issued any notice nor conducted any enquiry
before the issuance of the Review Medical Examination Report is not
acceptable and non-est in the eye of law. He also opposed the content
that the petitioner is not having polydactyl but having unsized left thumb
highlighting the opinion of the Medical Examiner, who conducted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
detailed Medical Examination and stressed upon his opinion to the effect
that the petitioner is affected by polydactyl and declared his candidature
as 'unfit' and the same was also confirmed by the Review Medical Board
consisting of experts by conducting X-ray and Doppler Scan test.
11. Adding his contentions, he argued that as per Clause 7 of the
guidelines for Review Medical Board in case of minor acceptable defect,
the MEB can accept candidature if the defect will not in any way affect
the efficiency of the candidate and hence the MEB should consider the
defect of the petitioner under Clause 7 is unsustainable, as under the
said Clause, the minor defect which can be considered by the Medical
Board is listed where polydactyl is not at all considered but under Clause
6 or it is clearly stated that 'polydactyl' is a ground for rejection. At this
stage, he contended that it is predominant to note that the petitioner is
affected with pre-axial polydactyl i.e., his thumb is divided into two and
have two nails and have extra finger. It is submitted that in the opinion
of MEB, polydactyl can interfere with vital operational tasks such as
proper weapon handling and recoil control, wearing standardized combat
gears, performing physically rigorous training and duties involving grip,
climb and tactical movements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
12. He brought the notice of this Court to the fact that admission
of candidates with anatomical variations into combatised roles leads
risks to personal and unit safety and affects uniformity of training and
deployment, which is considered as a permanent disqualification across
Armed Forces and CAPFs to maintain high standards of combat
readiness and functional integrity.
13. The learned Central Government Standing counsel for the
respondents drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the case of
Hemant Kumar Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Others
reported in 2018 DHC:1769-DB, wherein the Court has dismissed the
petition stating the Clause 6 (27) of the guidelines. The relevant portion
of the order is extracted as follows:
1. Learned counsel for the respondents
counters the aforesaid submission and
submits that there are no separate
Guidelines laid down by the respondents
for inducting/recruiting Sub Inspectors in
the Delhi Police and the said Guidelines
have in fact been issued by the Ministry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
of Home Affairs (Police Division-II) of the
Government of India itself. The same
applies across the board for recruitment
in all the CAPFs, including Sub Inspectors
in the Delhi Police. She draws the
attention of the court to the first page of
the revised Guidelines, which states as
below:-
"The medical fitness criteria have
due allowances for the age of the
candidate yet it should be understood
that the question of fitness involve future
as well as present and that one of the
main object of medical examination is to
secure a continuous effective service and
to prevent early pension or payment due
to premature discharge from service or
death. The instructions of medical
examination had been issued by MHA for
Asstt. Commandant, Sub Inspectors and
Constable in CAPFs separately and have
been amended as and when need arose."
5. Counsel for the respondents explains
that the candidature of the petitioner was
rejected on account of his medical infirmity, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
terms of para 6(27) of the captioned
Guidelines, which lays down the general
grounds for rejection and states that a
candidate can be rejected if he is suffering
from "Polydactyl of hands /feet".
6. We have perused the Guidelines
placed on record. The first page of the said
Guidelines titled "Acknowledgement", has not
been enclosed by learned counsel for the
petitioner at Annexure P-6 (colly.). The same
has however been filed by learned counsel for
the respondents alongwith the counter
affidavit and is marked as Annexure R-2 and
the relevant extract has been reproduced
hereinabove. In view of the fact that the said
Guidelines have been applied uniformly for
recruitment of Sub Inspectors in the Delhi
Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub Inspectors in
the CISF Examination, 2016, the petitioner
cannot raise a grievance that he has been
discriminated against. Merely because the
petitioner's first preference for recruitment
was Delhi Police, cannot mean that the said
Guidelines that have been followed by the
respondents for selecting all the candidates
irrespective of their preference of a particular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
Force, would not apply to those who gave their
first preference for being recruited in the Delhi
Police. The medical standards fixed by the
respondents for recruitment to the subject
post are common and identical in respect of all
the candidates notwithstanding the
organisation for which they gave their
preference and for which they have been
selected. Para 6(27) of the Guidelines specifies
"Polydactyl of hands/feet" as a medical
condition which can be a ground to reject a
candidate.
7. That being the position, we find no
ground for interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed
as meritless along with the pending
application. No orders as to cost.
14. Highlighting the aforesaid decision, the learned Central
Government Standing counsel submitted that the present case on hand
also stands on the same footing. Thus, he contended that the Review
Medical Examination report impugned in the present Writ Petition
warrants no interference by this Court as the same has been passed by
the third respondent after adhering to the procedure and guidelines
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
enacted by the Government of India and hence, prayed this Court to
dismiss the same.
15. Considered the rival submissions made on either side and also
perused the entire materials available on record.
16. On an overall perusal of the case reveals that the petitioner
has participated in the recruitment process as per notification dated
24.11.2023 and cleared the Computer Based Examination, Physical
Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test but however, he was not
qualified in the Medical Examination and his candidature was rejected on
the ground that he is having polydactyl left hand, whereas the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not having
polydactyl left hand but however his left hand thumb is unsized which
does not falls under polydactyl and hence, his candidature cannot be
rejected on the ground of 'polydactyl'. The learned counsel also
submitted that the petitioner has neither been issued with any notice
nor any opportunity was provided for hearing and contended that the
impugned Review Medical Examination report dated 07.10.2024 passed
by the third respondent without adhering to the Rules, is unacceptable
and bad in the eye of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
17. At this stage, it is relevant for this Court to refer to some of
the decisions rendered by the various High Courts in a similar issue
which reads as under:
1)Mangalu Nath Vs. The Union of India and 6 Others rep. by
the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi-110 001 [2021:GAU-
AS-12107], where the Hon'ble High Court has held the following:
“5) It is seen that in the case of
Suchitra Sethi (supra), which was decided
by the Orissa High Court, except for the
nature of disease stated to be suffered by
the writ petitioner therein and that in the
said case candidature of the petitioner was
rejected in recruitment process, the facts
of the said case Page No.# 6/9 relates to
the same recruitment process as in the
present case, which was initiated by Staff
Selection Commission vide advertisement
dated 24.01.2015 to fill up 62,390
General Duty Constable vacancies (both
male and female) in different categories,
i.e., SC, ST, OBC and Un-reserved
category in CAPFs like BSF, CISF, CRPF,
SSB, ITBP, Assam Rifles, NIA, SSF. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
said case, it was held that the revised
guidelines issued on 20.05.2015 did not
form a part of the notification issued for
recruitment of CAPFs and accordingly, the
rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner therein was interfered with and
direction was issued to appoint the
petitioner therein. The relevant portion of
paragraph nos. 1, 8, 11, 12 and 15 (as
extracted from 2017 Legal Eagle 225)are
quoted below:-
"1. The Staff Selection Commission,
Government of India released a
notification on 24.01.2015 to fill up 62390
GD Constable vacancies (both male and
female) in different categories, i.e., SC,
ST, OBC and Un-Reserved in Indian
Armed Forces like BSF, CISF, CRPF/CAPF,
SSB, ITBP, Assam Rifles, NIA, SSF. ...
*** *** ***
8. As it appears from the counter
affidavit, the recruitment notice was
issued on 24.01.2015, but a revised
Uniform Guidelines for Medical
Examination Test (MET) For Recruitment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
in CAPFs, NSG & AR was issued on
20.05.2015, i.e., four months after the
publication of notice. By issuing such
uniform revised guidelines, the authorities
have changed the norms and conditions
prescribed in the advertisement issued on
24.01.2015 which is also not
permissible. ...
*** *** ***
11. In A.A. Calton v. The Director
ofEducation, AIR 1983 SC 1143, the apex
Court held that law as it stood at the point
of time when the process of selection
commenced will be the law according to
which the selection has to be
completed. Similar view has also been
taken by the apex Court in P. Mahendran
v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405.
12. In view of the law discussed
above, there is no dispute Page No.# 7/9
that after the advertisement was issued
on 24.01.2015, the Uniform Revised
Guidelines was issued on 20.05.2015,
which does not form part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
notification issued for recruitment in
CAPFs, NSG & AR. As such, the action
taken pursuant to the said Uniform
Revised Guidelines, as has been admitted
in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit
that on the basis of the revised guidelines
for medical examination for recruitment of
Gazetted Officers (GOs) and Non-
Gazetted Officers (NGOs) in CAPFs & AR
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide
letter dated 20.05.2015 the petitioner was
declared medically unfit by the Medical
Board, cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Furthermore, the action taken on the basis
of subsequent Uniform Revised Guidelines,
without bringing the same to the notice of
the candidates, is arbitrary, unreasonable
and hit by the principle "once game is
played the rule of game cannot be
changed in the midst".
*** *** ***
15. In view of the factual and legal
analysis made above, this Court is of the
considered view that the review medical
examination report Annexure-6, whereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
the petitioner has been declared unfit on
the basis of the Uniform Revised
Guidelines for Medical Examination Test
(MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG & AR
dated 20.05.2015 which was issued four
months after the notice of recruitment
dated 24.01.2015, cannot sustain in the
eye of law. Accordingly, the same is
hereby set aside and the authorities
concerned are directed to act upon the
medical certificate issued by the Medical
Board, City Hospital, Cuttack [Annexure-V,
Form No. 3 CAPFs-Constable (GD) 2005]
dated 21.05.2016 in Annexure-4 and
consequentially issue necessary
appointment order to the petitioner, by
declaring her medically fit to hold the post
of Constable GD in Assam Rifles."
That in the case of Tarini Talukdar
(supra), this Court had also held that
where appointment order has been issued
and the petitioner had accepted the same
by reporting for duty, subsequent medical
make the petitioner ineligible for
appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
7) In view of the well settled legal
position as discussed herein above, the
case of the petitioner is found to be
squarely covered by the ratio thereof.
Moreover, it is seen that in the case of
Suchitra Sethi (supra), the selection
process was initiated by advertisement
dated 20.01.2015,which is the same
advertisement as in the present case and
in the said case, the action taken
pursuance to subsequent guideline dated
20.05.2015 was held to be forbidden,
impermissible and accordingly, the
rejection of candidature of the petitioner
was interfered with. Therefore, as the
petitioner herein is on the same footing as
the petitioner in the case of Suchitra Sethi
(supra), this writ petition deserves to be
allowed and it is ordered accordingly.
8) The order/letter No. A.VI.1/2017-
EC-V dated 26.08.2017, issued by the
Commandant, Group Centre, Central
Reserve Police Force, Dayapur, Silchar
under authority of the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Silchar, thereby
cancelling the candidature of the petitioner
for the post of Constable/ General Duty is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
set aside and quashed. Consequently, the
respondent authorities, specifically, the
respondent nos. 5 and 7 are also directed
to declare the petitioner to be medically fit
in accordance with the medical
examination report as carried out as per
admit card for medical scheduled to be
held on 27.05.2015 (Annexure-4), which
must be available with the respondent
authorities and they shall pass
consequential orders to reinstate the
petitioner in service, which shall be done
within the outer period of 45 (forty five)
days from the date of service of a certified
copy of this order in the office of the
respondent no. 7.
9) The writ petition stands allowed
to the extent as indicated above. There
shall be no order as to cost.”
2)In the case of Guruparasad V. Union of India rep. by its
Secretary Ministry of Personnel and Others reported in 2004 SCC
OnLine CAT 6, the Tribunal has held the following:
“6. Learned counsel for the applicant urged
that the applicant has been declared unfit for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
Technical Services because of 'SYNDACTYL with
POLYDACTYL'. According to him, the same does
not affect his work in the Technical Services like
Indian Police Service and, therefore, basis for
rejecting his claim cannot be sustained so as to
allocate him to the Indian Police Service.
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions (Department of Personnel and
Training) had issued a notification on
15.12.2001. It contained the rules for a
competitive examination, i.e., Civil Services
Examination held by the Union Public Service
Commission in the year 2002. Under Rule 21, it
has clearly been provided that a candidate must
be in good mental and bodily health and free
from any physical defect likely to interfere with
the discharge of his duties as an officer of the
service. The said Rule reads:
"21. A candidate must be in good mental
and bodily health and free from any physical
defect likely to interfere with the discharge of his
duties as an officer of the service. A candidate
who after such medical examination as
Government or the appointing authority, as the
case may be, may prescribe, is found not to
satisfy these requirements will not be appointed.
Any candidate called for the Personality Test by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
the Commission may be required to undergo Part
I of the medical examination and the candidates
who are declared finally successful on the basis
of this examination, may be required to under go
Part II of the medical examination. The details of
Parts I and II of the medical examination are
given in the Appendix III to these Rules. No fee
shall be payable to the Medical Board by the
candidate for the medical examination except in
the case of appeal."
8. As already referred to above, when
applicant was sent for medical examination, the
Medical Board held him 'unfit' for Technical
Services on account of 'SYNDATYL with
POLYDACTYL'.
9. Even under the Gazette Notification
prescribing the medical standards, a person, who
has passed the examination must be in good
mental and bodily health and free from any
physical defect likely to interfere with the
discharge of his duties as an officer of the
service.
Further details also indicate that "When
any defect is found it must be noted in the
certificate and the Medical Examiner should state
his opinion whether or not it is likely to interfere
with the efficient performance of the duties which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
will be required to the candidate". It also gives
details as to what should be indicated in the
Medical Board's report. The relevant portion
reads:
"It should be understood that the question
of fitness involves the future as well as present
and that one of the main objects of medical
examinations is to secure continuous effective
service, and in the case of candidates for
permanent appointment to prevent early pension
or payments in case of premature death. It is at
the same time to be noted that the question is
one of the likelihood of continuous effective
service and the rejection of a candidate need not
be advised on account of the presence of a
defect which is only a small proposition of cases
is found to interfere with continuous effective
service."
"In case where a Medical Board considers
that a minor disability disqualifying a candidate
for government service can be cured by
treatment (medical or surgical) a statement to
the effect should be recorded by the Medical
Board. There is no objection to a candidate being
informed of the Board's opinion to the effect by
the Appointing Authority and when a cure has
been affected it will open to the authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
concerned to ask for another Medical Board."
11. Perusal of the same clearly show that
when a person is declared medically unfit for
Technical Services, reasons must be given that it
is likely to interfere in discharge of his duties in
that particular service. It can be brief. In the
absence of any reasons, it would be difficult even
for any other person to adjudicate as to how a
particular defect that has been noticed, a person
is unfit for Technical Services. In the present
case, there are no reasons that are forthcoming.
It has simply been stated that the applicant is
'unfit' for Technical Services on account of
'SYNDATYL with POLYDACTYL'.
12.When rights of the applicant were
affected, it was proper and in the fitness of
things that reasons in this regard must be
forthcoming. More so, when applicant states that
the above defects in any case are curable and in
any case he is competent to discharge the
functions of the Indian Police Service.
13. For these reasons, we dispose of the
present application directing:
The respondents should get re-examination
of the applicant done and the concerned Medical
Board must give brief reasons necessary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
indicate, if the applicant is unfit for Technical
Services.
Further action can only be taken after the
said examination is held.
3)In yet another decision in the case of Santosh Gorain Vs. The
Union of India through Home Secretary, New Delhi and 4 Others
[AIRONLINW 2020 JHA 1334], wherein the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi has dealt with a similar issue and had allowed
the petition filed by the petitioner by quashing the impugned order. The
relevant portions of the order reads as under:
“5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner assailed the
impugned order on the ground that in view of
the new Guidelines, it is crystal clear that the
case of the petitioner is not coming under the
upper extremities. He submits that it is finding of
the Medical Board that there is deformities in the
toes of the petitioner which comes under para-
viii (B) foot and ankle. He draws the attention of
the Court to the Guidelines attached with the
counter-affidavit. Para VII of the Guidelines
speaks about upper extremities. Clause-3 speaks
about hand and fingers and Clause-3 sub-clause
(b)speaks polydactyly/ syndactyly is
disqualifying. He submits that this sub- clause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
(b) has arbitrarily used by the Medical Board.
The finding of the Medical Board is about
deformities of the toes of the leg and finger
which comes under Para -viii (B) of the
Guidelines- foot and ankle. By way of referring
the Medical Board Report, he submits that in
view of Para -viii (B) of the Guidelines that does
not mean about the polydactyly and syndactyly
and in this view of the matter the Medical Board
arbitrarily applied the guideline. He further
submits that the impugned order is bad in law in
view of the fact that at the time of joining the
service, the petitioner was medically examined
and he was found fit and thereafter the
petitioner has completed two semesters of the
training. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that it is well-settled proposition
of law that if the action is arbitrary and punitive,
the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the
punishment order.
6. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I,
appearing for the respondent-Union of India
submits that the petitioner was sent for 3rd
semester training and was re-examined by the
Medical Board whereby it was come to the
knowledge that the petitioner's foot and ankle
was having deformities. He submits that Medical
Board has examined this and found syndactyly in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
left foot toes. Learned counsel for the
respondent-Union of India draws the attention of
the Court to the Para-viii(B) of the Guidelines-
Foot and Ankle which is quoted here-in-below:
"B. Foot and Ankle.
a). Absence of a foot or any portion thereof
is disqualifying.
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.
c) Clubfoot (talipes) or high-arched foot
(pescavus that prevents the proper wearing of
combatised footwear or impairs walking,
marching, running, or jumping is disqualifying.
d) Presence of flat foot (pesplanus) as
mentioned before.
e) Presence of ingrown toenails, if infected,
are disqualifying."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
7. By way referring aforesaid Guidelines,
learned counsel for the respondent-Union of
India Submits that it clearly says about the
deformities of the toes and Medical Board has
found deformities in the petitioner and that is
why experts have rightly come to the conclusion
that syndactyly does not mean upper part of the
body. Syndactyly means togetherness. He
further submits that the experts have examined
this petitioner and they have come to that
conclusion. He submits that the writ court may
not interfere in such matters where the expertise
is required. The experts have come to the
conclusion. He refers the judgment in the case of
" U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs.
Rahul Singh & Anr." reported in 2018 (3) JLJR
307 (SC) in which it has been observed as
under:-
"14. In the present case we find that
all the 3 questions needed a long process
of reasoning and the High Court itself has
noticed that the stand of the Commission is
also supported by certain text books. When
there are conflicting views, then the court
must bow down to the opinion of the
experts. Judges are not and cannot be
experts in all fields and, therefore, they
must exercise great restraint and should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
not be overstep their jurisdiction to upset
the opinion of the experts."
8. In view of above facts, the Court has
examined the Guidelines which has been brought
on record by way of counter-affidavit. Upper
extremities are disclosed in para-VII of the said
Guidelines. Hand and fingers at Clause- 3 of the
Guidelines. Clause-3 sub-clause (b) of Guidelines
disclosed polydactyly/ syndactyly is disqualifying.
Clause-3 of the Guidelines is quoted here-in-
below:-
"3.Hand and fingers:-
(a) Loss of only soft tissue of terminal
phalanx of little finger of one or both hands is to
be accepted.
(b) Plydactly/syndactly is disqualifying.
(c)Scars and deformities of the fingers or
hand that impair normal functioning/free
movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree
as to interfere with the satisfactory performance
of combatised duties, are disqualifying.
(d) Presence of paralysis or weakness of
upper limbs, including nerve paralysis, carpal
tunnel and cubital syndromes, lesion of ulnar and
radial nerve sufficient to produce physical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
findings in the hand, such as muscle already and
weakness is disqualifying.
(e)Presence of disease, injury, or
congenital condition with residual weakness or
symptoms such as to prevent satisfactory
performance of duty, including, but not limited to
chronic joint pain: shoulder, upper arm, forearm,
and hand, late effect of fracture of the upper
extremities, late effect of sprains without
mention of injury and late effects of tendon
injury are disqualifying."
9. Foot and Ankle is prescribed for
examination of lower extremities. It is admitted
position that the case of the petitioner was found
to be deformities of foot and ankle whereas, the
Board Proceeding says about the upper part
extremities Clause-3 Hand and Fingers, sub-
clause (b), Polydactyly/Syndactyly is
disqualifying. It further says that para XI
examination of lower extremities, Para VIII, Foot
and Ankle. Sub-section (b) presence of
deformities of toes are disqualifying.
10. In view of the Guidelines, it is crystal
clear that hand and fingers comes to the upper
extremities and its Clause 3(b) says polydactyly/
syndactyly is disqualifying whereas the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
the petitioner comes under the lower extremities
and Medical Board has come to the conclusion
that deformities of the toes of the petitioner. In
the Board Proceeding, upper extremities and
lower extremities both are mentioned. The
reasons for unfitness was mentioned that
syndactyly (left foot toes (2nd & 3rd) attached
together & noticed as single). On examination
syndactyly left foot 2nd & 3rd toes attached
together (only soft tissue) & noticed as single toe
and it was opined that this is a case of simple
syndactyly. Thus, it is clear that how the Medical
Board has mentioned that the case of the
petitioner comes under the upper extremities as
the case of the petitioner comes under the Foot
and Ankle Clause Para -viii(B). There is no doubt
that Court in experts matter did not go into
examination of the experts opinion but prima
facie in this case, it transpires that the Medical
Board has applied the upper extremities, lower
extremities in the case of the petitioner whereas
the case of the petitioner comes under para-
viii(B) Foot and Ankle. The petitioner has earlier
been examined at the time of joining and his
case was considered thereafter, he was allowed
to join the post. He has completed two
semesters training. In that view of the matter,
the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
respondent no. 3 who will send the petitioner for
re-examination to the Medical Board and further
take decision in light of discussion made in this
order in accordance with law and in view of
further Medical Report.
11. In the light of above discussions, the
writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
The aforesaid decisions are self explanatory. The various High Courts
have rendered the decisions in favour of the petitioners whose cases are
identical as that of the petitioner herein, who is having polydactyl on left
thumb. Apparently, it is to be referred that as per Clause 7 highlighted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain minor defects are
to be accepted and the fact to be noted that the efficiency of the person
in discharging the duties has to be taken into account for approval of
their candidature. It is to be borne in mind that any person with minor
deformities that don't significantly impact the candidate's ability to
perform the duties of the post has to be considered for selection.
18. At this stage, it is the duty cast upon this Court to point out that
the purpose of acquiring employment in Government service, deemed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
security of life. Earlier, Government job was pensionable whereas now
because of financial constraints, we are unable grant pension but
however still there is security of job. In our thought process, i.e., in our
mind and heart, we should see that if once disabled, it is an act of God
but not an human error. On such realisation, now we rather called the
disabled as 'differently abled' and our duty towards whatever act do for
humanity should be on broad perspective rather than narrow. If a
person is born with a defect which is not seen in majority, then he is
also on par with others, unless he is unable to perform the duty which
the other persons can perform. If a person with disability of any kind is
capable of performing the same duty as performed by a normal person,
then his case is also to be considered as that of the person, who is
normal in the strict sense. We owe a duty towards humanity and
therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate to direct
the Government bodies and Authorities, who formulate the laws and
rules regarding medical examination to also to bear this in mind, instead
of going to the technicality of the medical disability, they should rather
see it on humanitarian approach. Considering this aspect, if he or she is
able to perform the duty as performed by other normal persons, his
name for employment making him medically unfit would not be rejected
on this sole ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
19. Adding further, in our Country, disability should not be a
barrier to Government jobs, as the law mandates non-discrimination and
reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities (RPwD) Act,
2016, ensures that Government Establishments cannot discriminate
against individuals with disabilities in employment matters.
Furthermore, the Act requires Government offices to provide reasonable
accommodations to ensure disabled employees can effectively perform
their jobs. The RPwD Act especially prohibits discrimination against
persons with disabilities in employment. Moreover, the focus should be
on a person's ability to perform the job, rather than solely on their
disability. It is vital important that efforts should be to address cultural
barriers and negative perceptions surrounding disability in the work
place. Looking from any angle, denying a job citing disability can only
be allowed if the disability prevents the person from performing the
functions associated with the job. “Reasonable accommodation” under
Section 2(y) of the RPD Act means the “necessary and appropriate
modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or
undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities
the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others”. The Bombay
High Court expressly relied on the principle of “reasonable
accommodation” in Ranjit Kumar Rajak v. State Bank of India for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
the first time. Another pioneering case was Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri
v. Nazir Ahmed Shah in 2010, where the Supreme Court first applied
the principle while holding that the Petitioner teacher was entitled to
remain in his appointment, despite having cerebral palsy and that he
could perform his duties with the aid of assistive devices. In 2016, the
Supreme Court in a seminal decision in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of
India, held that all airlines had to comply with Civil Aviation Regulations
which mandated accessibility and provide reasonable accommodations
to passengers. However, it was not until 2021 in Vikash Kumar v. Union
Public Service Commission, where the Court analysed the meaning and
scope of the principle and held that reasonable accommodation as
covered under the RPD Act, was an expression of the constitutional
guarantees of equality, freedom and dignity. The Court held that:
“For a person with disability, the
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to
equality, the six freedoms and the right to life
under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not
given this additional support that helps make
these rights real and meaningful for them.
Reasonable accommodation is the instrumentality
… to enable the disabled to enjoy the
constitutional guarantee of equality and non-
discrimination.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
The Courts have continued to interpret and expand the scope of
reasonable accommodations in the years since. Taking all these aspects,
this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner
deserves to be allowed.
20. In view of the above discussions and in the light of the
decisions of the various High Courts favouring the petitioner as stated
supra, this Court on its perception deems it fit to accept the prayer of the
petitioner and accordingly, the impugned Review Medical Examination
report dated 07.10.2024 issued by the third respondent, is hereby
quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third
respondent to review /re-conduct the medical examination for the said
post in the Central Armed Police Forces in pursuance of the recruitment
notification dated 24.11.2023.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed, if any. There
shall be no orders as to costs.
15.07.2025
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Order : Speaking
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
To
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DP
ORDER made in
15.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 01:18:44 pm )
