Medical rejection based on unpredictable treatment outcomes requires specific findings of functional impairment under recruitment guidelines.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Having cleared the written, physical efficiency, and physical standard tests, he was declared unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 25.11.2025 due to an "infected wart left ear lobule"

A subsequent independent dermatological opinion from Apollo Clinic declared him "fit for job" and prescribed antibiotics

The Review Medical Examination (RME) Board sustained the "unfit" finding on 29.11.2025, stating that the outcome of the prescribed antibiotic treatment could not be predicted

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition, contending the grounds were not specified in the official guidelines.

1. Whether the medical rejection of the petitioner on the grounds that "treatment outcome cannot be predicted" is legally sustainable under the recruitment guidelines

2. Whether the Review Medical Examination Board failed to provide a specific finding that the petitioner’s condition interfered with combatised duties as required by the Revised Uniform Guidelines

Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in CRPF (Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021), specifically Clause No. XII (B)(7).

Clause No. XII (B)(7) stipulates that localized fungus infections are only disqualifying if they are "extensive" and interfere with the "proper wearing of combatised equipment" or the "performance of combatised duties"

The principle of reconciling contradictory medical opinions between civilian doctors and official Medical Boards in recruitment matters.

The Court observed that the RME Board’s rejection was based solely on the unpredictability of treatment outcomes rather than an objective assessment of current disability

It noted a significant contradiction between the BSF medical reports and the independent specialist (Apollo Clinic) who declared the petitioner fit

Applying Clause No. XII (B)(7) of the Guidelines, the Court found no evidence or specific finding in the medical reports suggesting that the ear lobule infection was "extensive" or hindered the performance of duties

The Court reasoned that since the infection might have been arrested post-treatment and the RME Board failed to link the condition to the specific disqualification criteria in the guidelines, the rejection lacked a solid factual and legal foundation

The Court held that the petitioner is permitted to file a detailed representation within one week; Review Medical Examination Board (Respondent No. 6) is directed to re-examine the petitioner, involving ENT or Dermatological specialists (civilian or otherwise), to determine the current nature and gravity of the infection and pass a fresh opinion within 60 days.

An interim protection granted on 07.01.2026 was ordered to remain in force until the final opinion is rendered