Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rakesh Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
S/L 10
11.03.2026
Court No.18
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA 2759 of 2026
Rakesh Ghosh
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee
Ms. Ananya Neogi
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee
Ms. Anushka Ghosh
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Chaubey
Mr. Madhu Jana
... for the Respondent.
1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the records.
2. The petitioner participated for recruitment in CAPF (GD). He was found unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination Board on December 3, 2025 on three counts. The petitioner applied for review of the medical report and the report of the Review Medical Examination Board found the petitioner unfit on one count.
3. The ground for disqualifying the petitioner at the detailed medical examination stage differs from the reason for disqualification taken by the Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board did not accept any of the disqualifications indicated by the Detailed Medical Examination Board but found the petitioner unfit on account of 'extreme acne'.
4. The report of the Review Medical Board clearly mentions that as per the opinion of the Dermatologist, 2 extensive acne will interfere with wearing of combatised equipment and performing combatised duty. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same.
5. It has been submitted that on December 3, 2025 the Detailed Medical Examination Board did not find any acne on the petitioner but on December 4, 2025 the Review Medical Examination Board found acne to be of such extensive nature that the petitioner has been declared unfit for recruitment.
6. It has been submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that such acne cannot be cured within a short period of time and the same will interfere with his duty.
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the exact places where acne was declared has not been disclosed in the report of the Review Medical Examination Board.
8. The petitioner has relied upon medical report obtained from the hospital of the State Government where the petitioner has been found to be dermatologically fit.
9. Prayer has been made to re-evaluate or re- examine the petitioner by an independent authority.
10. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondent.
11. It has been submitted that the guidelines for recruitment clearly mention that severe acne is a 3 ground for rejection of candidature as the same interferes with proper wearing of combatised equipment.
12. It has been submitted that the petitioner would be bound by the report of the Review Medical Board and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
13. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and perused the materials on record.
14. It appears that the petitioner was finally declared unfit by the Review Medical Board on the ground of extensive acne which will interfere with the wearing up combatised equipments and performing combatised duty.
15. The report of the review medical examination contains a note that the decision of the Review Medical Board will be final and no appeal will be entertained against the finding of the Review Medical Board in Review Medical Examination. The petitioner was aware of such condition at the time of filing the application form for participating in the recruitment process.
16. The recruiting authority is the best judge to decide as regards the eligibility and fitness of a candidate to be engaged in CAPF. The fitness of a civilian may not match the fitness of the member of the armed forces. The doctors of the recruiting authority have declared the petitioner unfit as per the guidelines of recruitment.
4
17. The Court would not like to interfere with the same merely upon relying on the medical report of the doctors primarily catering to civilians.
18. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
20. Urgent photstat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)