Presence of Hesitation Cut Marks Justifies Medical Unfitness in CAPF Recruitment Due to Past Self-Harm Behavior

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable GD in CAPFs following a recruitment notice dated 05.09.2024.

After qualifying for the written, physical standard, and physical efficiency tests, he underwent a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 05.12.2025, where he was declared unfit due to "hesitation cut marks on left forearm".

A Review Medical Board (RME) sustained this finding on 09.12.2025.

Although a subsequent dermatological report from Gauhati Medical College indicated no active skin disease, the RME maintained the unfitness based on potential past self-harm behavior.

The petitioner sought a remand for psychiatric evaluation at a government hospital.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the ground of "hesitation cut marks" as per the medical guidelines was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the court should interfere with the findings of the Review Medical Board (RME) and remand the matter for fresh evaluation by the Department of Psychiatry.

Guidelines for Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, May 2015, which explicitly lists the presence of hesitation cut marks as a ground for rejection.

Union of India & Ors. vs. Koushik Paul (Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 738-741/2022), which established the principle that the decision taken by a Review Medical Board in recruitment cases should ordinarily be treated as final and should not be interfered with by the courts.

The court observed that the petitioner did not dispute the physical presence of the hesitation cut marks on his left forearm.

While the petitioner argued for a psychiatric re-evaluation, the court noted that the RME had already considered the medical implications of such marks. The court reasoned that hesitation marks indicate past self-injury behavior, which suggests an increased risk of future recurrence.

Given the high-stress nature of the Armed Forces—involving sleep deprivation, extreme physical strain, and emotional pressure—the authorities concluded that such candidates pose a risk to themselves and others.

Consequently, the court found that the medical boards acted within the scope of the established 2015 Guidelines and that there was no legal basis to override their expert findings.

The court ruled that since the recruitment guidelines specifically provide for rejection based on hesitation cut marks, and since the medical board's decision is final as per Supreme Court precedent, no interference was warranted. All interim orders and pending applications were vacated and dismissed.