Facts
The Petitioner applied for the posts of Sub-Inspector in CAPF and Delhi Police, and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF pursuant to an SSC advertisement dated 03.03.2018
Source reference: p. 2After clearing written and physical tests, he was declared medically unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) due to "cauliflower ear deformity/perichondrial hematoma fibrosis" of both ears
Source reference: p. 2A Review Medical Board (RMB) concurred with this finding, noting "defective curvature of both ears"
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner challenged these orders, contending he has normal hearing as per an ENT evaluation at Lady Hardinge Medical College and that "cauliflower ear" is not a specifically listed ground for rejection in the medical guidelines
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the concurrent medical opinions declaring the Petitioner unfit on account of bilateral external ear deformity warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 4, para 102. Whether the absence of an ENT specialist in the Review Medical Board vitiates the medical assessment
Source reference: p. 6-7, para 21Law Applied
Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles (20.05.2015), which mandate unfitness for "any other severe external ear deformity" under the residuary clause of the ear examination standards
Source reference: p. 3, para 8Judicial review of medical boards in disciplined forces is limited to cases of procedural breach, absence of requisite specialists in complex cases, or perversity, as standards for such forces are stricter than civilian roles
Source reference: p. 4, para 11-12Reasoning
The Court reasoned that there was no dispute regarding the physical existence of the "cauliflower ear" deformity, as even the Petitioner’s own medical records from Lady Hardinge confirmed the condition
Source reference: p. 5, para 16The Petitioner’s argument that his hearing is normal was deemed irrelevant because the medical standards for CAPFs specifically disqualify candidates for external deformities, regardless of functional hearing capacity
Source reference: p. 5, para 17Regarding the absence of an ENT specialist on the RMB, the Court held that since the deformity was external and visible (not a complex internal pathology), a specialist was not mandatory for its identification
Source reference: p. 7, para 21The Respondents provided medical literature linking cauliflower ears to potential future hearing loss and infections, suggesting their interpretation of the condition as a "severe external ear deformity" was not arbitrary
Source reference: p. 6, para 19Holding
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that in the absence of perversity, mala fides, or breach of procedure, it would not substitute its own view for the expert opinion of the Medical Boards
The Court confirmed that the Petitioner’s condition fell within the residuary disqualification category of the recruitment guidelines. All pending applications were closed
Source reference: p. 6, para 18; p. 8Original Court PDF
Deenbandhu MalikvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in