Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raja Haldar vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 February, 2026
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Form No. J.(2)
Item No. DL/6
adeb - AR (CT)
Ct. No. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICATION
APPELLATE SIDE
Before:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
W.P.A. 28501 of 2025
Raja Haldar
VS.
Union of India & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Kundu
Mr. Bidan Modak
Ms. Arpita Kundu
For the Respondents : Mr. Partha Ghosh
Mr. Josojeet Mukherjee Hearing concluded on : 04.02.2026 Judgment on: : 04.02.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J:
1. In terms of the order dated 8th January, 2026 a writing is placed before this Court signed on 13th January, 2026 by Commandant (Estt) on behalf of Inspector General BSF Ghty Frontier and same is taken on record. 2
2. Petitioner participated in the selection process for being appointed as Constable (GD) under Central Armed Police Forces and in review medical examination petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of multiple scrotal sebaceous cysts.
3. It is disclosed in the writing dated 15th January, 2026 that petitioner was examined in detailed medical examination on 15th November, 2025 and was declared unfit on the ground of multiple extensive skin rashes all over back, both scrotal region and multiple nodular swelling in scrotum.
4. Petitioner being aggrieved preferred review and was examined by Review Medical Board on 19th November, 2025. Review Medical Board examined the petitioner and referred to Maharaja Jitendra Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Cooch Behar for surgeon/specialist opinion.
Surgeon/ Specialist also diagnosed that it was a case of multiple scrotal sebaceous cysts and advised surgery.
5. In consideration of medical opinion Review Medical Board upon examining the petitioner also found that petitioner has sebaceous cysts on scrotal skin. According to respondent authorities such skin condition may lead to significant loss of man-hours on the grounds of medical 3 unfitness, necessary treatment or hospitalization. It is also disclosed in the writing that petitioner is incapable of satisfactorily completing the required training due to repeated friction injury/infection during strenuous courses, jungle warfare. Petitioner may not be adaptable to combative environment. It is also stated in the said writing that such disease may cause hindrance in proper wearing of uniform.
6. Copy of the writing dated 15th January, 2026 is made over to the learned advocate representing the petitioner.
7. Submission is made based on medical document dated 20th November, 2025 at page 30 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner dermatologist of Malda Medical College and Hospital did not agree with the findings of the Review Medical Board and other medical experts' opinion. According to the petitioner said medical document dated 20th November, 2025 indicates petitioner does not suffer from skin issue as revealed in review medical examination.
8. However, on perusal of said medical document dated 20th November, 2025 and another medical document at page 31 of the writ petition it appears that petitioner was prescribed treatment for skin problem and petitioner was not certified to be dermatologically fit at the material point of time. 4
9. In view of aforesaid situation Court has no other option but to rely upon the findings of medical experts as it is disclosed in the writing dated 15th January, 2026 filed today on behalf of respondent authorities.
10. Reliance is also placed on Clause XII(B)13 of the Revised Medical Guidelines of May, 2015 which provides scars or any other chronic skin disorder of a degree or nature that requires frequent outpatient treatment or hospitalization and skin issue which will interfere with the wearing of combatised clothing or equipment or which exhibits a tendency to ulcerate or interferes with the satisfactory performance of duty are disqualifying.
11. Writing dated 15th January, 2026 indicates skin condition of the petitioner may lead to significant loss of man-hours on the grounds of medical unfitness, necessary treatment or hospitalization.
12. As the Court is not medical expert, Court has to rely upon medical opinions which are available on record.
13. In aforesaid conspectus writ petition stands dismissed.
14. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)