Condition satisfying medical disqualification under CAPF guidelines precludes promotion via LDCE despite existing service status.

The Petitioner, a Constable/General Duty in the CISF, sought promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Executive through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2022

Although he cleared the written and physical tests, he was declared medically unfit due to "Right Testicular Hypertrophy" by the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Board (RMB)

After the Petitioner obtained independent reports from AIIMS and GIMS suggesting only "minimal hydrocele," he challenged the initial findings in W.P.(C) 933/2025, which was dismissed

In a subsequent Review Petition (Rev. Pet. 94/2025), the Court noted inconsistencies in medical descriptions and directed a fresh examination at Army Hospital (R&R)

That Board confirmed "mild hydrocele" and declared him unfit under the applicable guidelines

The Petitioner filed the present writ challenging this final report

1. Whether the medical report dated 03.04.2025, declaring the Petitioner unfit due to mild hydrocele, was arbitrary or contrary to the Revised Uniform Guidelines

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to parity with other candidates or exemption based on his existing service in the CISF

Revised Uniform Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles (MHA OM dated 20.05.2015). Specially, Clause 6(25) stipulates that a "large hydrocele" is a ground for rejection, while a "small hydrocele" is acceptable only if operated upon with no residual bad scar

Supreme Court precedent in Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India, which established that selection through LDCE is distinct from ordinary promotion and requires candidates to satisfy all prescribed medical standards for the higher post

The Court reasoned that once the Army Hospital (R&R) clarified the Petitioner's condition as "mild hydrocele," the ambiguity regarding "hypertrophy" was resolved

Applying Clause 6(25), the Court found that even mild or minimal hydrocele is a disqualifying condition unless the candidate has undergone surgery

Since the Petitioner admitted to not having surgery, he could not claim the exception

The Court emphasized that under Article 226, it cannot act as an appellate medical authority or override a competent Medical Board's findings unless there is evidence of perversity or mala fides, which was absent here

Furthermore, the Petitioner’s current service does not exempt him from the rigorous medical standards required for the LDCE selection process

The Court held that "mild hydrocele" without surgical intervention is a legitimate ground for unfitness in CAPF selections

Consequently, no relief could be granted regarding his promotion to ASI/Executive