Expert Medical Opinion of Recruiting Authority in Disciplined Forces Prevails Over Reports From Outside Medical Practitioners.

The petitioner applied for recruitment in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) 2025. He was declared medically unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Board due to high blood pressure, an accessory nipple, and being underweight

Upon a subsequent physical examination by the Review Medical Examination Board (RMEB), his unfitness was confirmed specifically on the grounds of "inferior ischemia changes" (detected via ECG) and "accessory nipple"

The petitioner challenged these findings, producing a report from a State Government hospital (College of Medicine & JNM Hospital) declaring him fit

The petitioner contended that the accessory nipple was a birthmark/non-deformity and that the ECG findings were not clinically correlated

1. Whether the medical report of a State Government hospital can supersede the expert findings of the recruiting authority’s medical boards in a recruitment process for disciplined forces

2. Whether the court can interfere with the expert medical opinion regarding a candidate’s physical fitness for the CAPF

The court applied the principle that recruitment to disciplined forces (Paramilitary or Police) is governed by stricter and higher standards of fitness compared to normal civilian recruitment

Candidates are bound by the specific recruitment rules and codified medical guidelines of the Force

Legal reliance was placed on Divyanshu Singh v. The Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2025) regarding independent medical examinations, though distinguished here

The court underscored the doctrine of judicial restraint in technical matters, asserting that courts are not experts on medical issues and should not substitute their views for those of specialized medical boards

The court reasoned that the CAPF requires personnel to perform under extreme pressure and specific conditions where physical fitness is paramount

It found that the authority followed due process by examining the petitioner twice (DME and RMEB)

Regarding the "accessory nipple," the court accepted the authority's expert view that it constitutes a congenital abnormality which may cause friction with combat gear during training

On "inferior ischemia," the court noted that even if the petitioner is currently asymptomatic or passed a test run, the existing ECG abnormality constitutes a ground for rejection under the guidelines as it might impede future duties

The court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on the State Hospital report, noting that the hospital only addressed the accessory nipple and not the ischemia, and regardless, the recruiting authority's experts prevail over "outside" examiners in specialized recruitment

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the standard of fitness for disciplined forces is a matter for the recruiting authority’s experts to decide