Rajasthan High Court Quashes Medical Board's Report Declaring Woman Unfit To Be Constable Due To 'Unfounded Assumption' About Birthmark

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a report of the Medical Board and a review report declaring a woman candidate "unfit" for the post of constable in Central Armed Police Forces due to a congenital melanocytic nevus mark (birthmark) on her back which was declared as non-contagious and medically insignificant by an independent expert. 

In doing so the court observed that the presumptions made by the medical board about the petitioner's birthmark were unsubstantiated and cannot be valid ground for the rejection of her candidature. It thus directed that she should be granted the same opportunity as other similarly situated candidates who participated in the said 2024 recruitment process.

Justice Sameer Jain in his order highlighted that the opinion of the medical board was legally unsustainable and in the absence of "any medical or logical reasoning" could hence be subjected to judicial review. 

It further said, "That the review medical board had assumed that the petitioner's birthmark may cause irritation in hot and humid climates, without providing any logical or scientific reasoning. Presumptions made in such a manner are unsubstantiated and cannot serve as a valid ground for medical rejection, as they lack a clear nexus to the petitioner's actual condition. Opinio juris meaning that a presumption must be grounded in evidence rather than conjecture. However, no such substantial evidences are presented by the respondents herein. Nevertheless, res ipsa loquitur meaning that the thing speaks for itself; as in the matter in hand the expert opinion (by JLN Government Hospital, Ajmer) clarifies that the birthmark is medically insignificant and poses no risk. The independent medical opinion provided by the JLN Hospital doctor is in favor of the petitioner's medical fitness. The opinion is not rebutted by the review board, thus strengthening the petitioner's position that there is no medical reason to reject her". 

Background

The petition was filed by a candidate for the post who was rejected based on her birthmark after being declared unfit by the designated medical board who deemed her birthmark to be an impediment to her ability to perform the duties at the post. Following this, the State had advised the petitioner to seek an opinion from an independent doctor who declared the petitioner to be entirely fit, contrary to the opinion of the board.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the board's opinion was not supported by any relevant medical rationale and failed to counter the findings of the independent expert's report. Further, it was put forth that in a previous recruitment process by BSF, the petitioner was declared medically fit. In this light, her present rejection appeared inconsistent, unjust and arbitrary, violating her fundamental right to equality.

On the other hand, the State submitted that the role of judiciary in such matters was limited and in absence of any malafides or gross violations, it should refrain from interfering with the expert opinion of the board. It was argued that the medical board's opinion should be accorded greater weight than that of any private medical practitioner.

The State further put forth that it was the opinion of the medical board that as part of her duties, the candidate shall be exposed to hot and humid climatic conditions which could irritate her birthmark and could consequently impede her from effectively rendering her duties.

Findings

After hearing the contentions, the Court took into account all the records, and held that, “the review medical board's opinion appears to be legally unsustainable, non-corroborated by a lawful rationale and is, therefore, subject to judicial review. In the absence of any substantiated medical or logical reasoning for the rejection of the petitioner's medical fitness, judicial intervention is warranted”.

The Court referred to and agreed with the high court's decision in Ashok Dudiya v Union of India and Ors. in which it was held that an arbitrary rejection based on minor or cosmetic medical conditions that did not impede the ability to perform the duties was impermissible. It was further opined in this case that the employer must exercise its powers in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner to ensure that disqualifications were grounded in genuine medical reasons rather than cosmetic or trivial concerns.

The Court also took into account the fact of the petitioner being declared medically fit in an earlier recruitment process by BSF and held that such determination held significant weight in the present case especially when the medical board review provided no substantial new evidence to contradict the earlier finding.

Further, the Court highlighted that, “advertisement was issued vis-à-vis the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), where the likelihood of being assigned to combat duties is minimal. This fact is crucial, as the medical standards required for combat roles might differ from those for administrative or other non-combat duties. Thus, the petitioner's medical condition, which does not affect her daily work or capabilities, should not disqualify her from serving in her current role.”

In this light, the Court directed that the petitioner was entitled for the recruitment and her medical disqualification, based on unfounded assumption, was arbitrary that lacked medical or logical reasoning.

"Further, the petitioner should be given service benefits that are commensurate with those granted to other candidates selected in the same batch, as her exclusion from consideration was based on an unjustifiable and erroneous medical disqualification; within an upper limit of four weeks from the date of passing of this judgment, if the petitioner is otherwise meritorious and eligible," the court said. 

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Title: Ramkala Varma v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

Click Here To Read/Download Order