Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Barui vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 May, 2026
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
97
18.05.2026
Court No.18
In the High Court at Calcutta
pg. Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA 26778 of 2025
Tapas Barui
VS.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debasish Kundu
Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu
Mr. Bidan Modak
... For the petitioner
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
Mr. Goutam Dinda
... For the Union of India
1. The exception filed by the petitioner to the report
of the respondents is taken on record.
2. The petitioner participated for recruitment as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces.
3. He has been declared medically unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination Board on three grounds i.e., (i) overweight, (ii) multiple large hyper pigmented patches and (iii) nodular lesions noted over the scrotal sac.
4. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Review Medical Examination Board. The Review Medical Examination Board declared the petitioner unfit on the ground of ulcerated lesions over scrotum due to removal of epidermoid cysts by electrocautery.
5. Thereafter the petitioner got himself medically examined in State Government hospital and obtained a fit certificate in his favour.
2
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which he has been medically examined by the Detailed Medical Examination Board and the Review Medical Examination Board.
7. Prayer has been made to re-evaluate and re- examine the physical fitness of the petitioner by an independent medical board.
8. Submission of the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing the respondents.
9. From the documents annexed to the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination Board affirmed by the Review Medical Examination Board.
10. According to the authority, ulceration present on scrotum may adversely affect in satisfactory performance of duty in CAPF and interferes in wearing of proper combatised uniforms and impairs in running, jumping and physical activities as required in CAPF. The outcome of ulcer healing can vary from non- healing or keloid formations or recurrence of cysts.
11. The petitioner was checked up at Barasat Government Medical College and Hospital, Department of Skin and the doctor noticed that epidermoid cyst over scrotum has been removed by electrocautery on 3rd November, 2025 from outside. Ulcer was present. The doctor advised two medicines and was of the opinion that the same was curable after treatment. 3
12. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the defect of the petitioner may be treated as minor acceptable defect which, according to the doctor, is curable. The petitioner has already taken medicines that were prescribed and the petitioner may be re- examined.
13. The authority relying on the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination was of the opinion that the cysts may interfere with the proper wearing of combatised equipment. The general guidelines prescribe that scars which exhibit tendency to ulcerate and requires frequent outpatient treatment or which interferes with the wearing of combatised clothing or equipment or interferes with the satisfactory performance of duty are disqualifying.
14. The submission of the petitioner for conducting fresh medical examination cannot be accepted by the Court as the petitioner failed to qualify on the day the medical examination was conducted and the result on the particular day of the examination is relevant. Further re-examination cannot be directed to be conducted.
15. As per the Recruitment Rules, the decision of the Review Medical Examination Board is final and no appeal can be entertained.
16. As it appears that the expert doctors of the recruiting authority detected the aforementioned 4 defects in the petitioner which are grounds for disqualification of candidature, accordingly, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings.
17. As the petitioner participated for recruitment in the Central Armed Police Force, the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner obtained from the State Government Hospital in support of the submission that he does not suffer from any such defect, cannot be accepted.
18. The standard of fitness of a civilian is not the same as required in the armed forces where strict and stringent methods to assess physical fitness are resorted to. The suitability of the candidate to function as a member of the Force, has to be left entirely of the expert doctors of the Force to assess the fitness of the candidate. The employer has the right to recruit only the fit candidates.
19. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
20. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)