Remand for medical re-examination ordered where Review Medical Board fails to consider conflicting expert civilian medical opinions.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) and other positions in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.09.2024

Having successfully cleared the Computer Based Test and Physical Efficiency/Standard Tests, he was subsequently declared medically unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination on three grounds: (i) Penile Vitiligo, (ii) High BP, and (iii) Tachycardia

The petitioner then obtained an independent medical opinion from a civilian doctor at Tezpur Medical College and Hospital on 21.11.2025, who certified him "Fit," stating the vitiligo was stable and did not impede duty

Despite this, the Review Medical Board (RMB) rejected the petitioner solely on the ground of "Penile Vitiligo" without addressing the civilian medical opinion

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidacy by the Review Medical Board solely on the ground of "Penile Vitiligo" was sustainable given the existence of a contradictory medical certificate from a civilian government hospital.

The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning administrative fairness in recruitment processes.

The court applied the principle that where contradictory medical opinions exist between specialists and the designated medical board—specifically regarding whether a condition is "stable" or an impediment to duty—the authorities must ensure a comprehensive re-evaluation rather than a perfunctory rejection.

The court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned assessment when a candidate presents a "Fit" certificate from a recognized government medical institution

The Court observed a clear conflict between the findings of the Review Medical Board and the specialized civilian hospital (Tezpur Medical College).

The Court noted that the Review Medical Board's final rejection on the ground of "Penile Vitiligo" lacked a detailed discussion or reference to the civilian doctor's specific finding that the condition was "stable" and "not [causing] any problem in performing his duties"

By failing to account for this expert civilian opinion, the board's decision-making process appeared incomplete. Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was not to substitute its own medical judgment, but to remand the matter back to the respondent authorities for a specialized re-examination to resolve the medical ambiguity

The Board is ordered to determine if abnormalities truly exist and, if found fit, the authorities must issue consequential appointment orders. A copy of the new medical opinion must be served upon the petitioner. The entire exercise is to be completed within 60 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order