Sr. No. 02 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 86/2025 in WP(C) No. 2332/2023 Vivek Baboria …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. C.M. Koul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.R. Bhat, Advocate. V/s Union of India and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 12.11.2025 01. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.02.2025, by which the writ petition seeking quashing of the medical opinion/conclusion of the Review Medical Board dated 05.08.2023, declaring the appellant unfit and consequently dismissing his appointment as Constable, was rejected. 02. The case set up by the appellant is that he participated in the selection process for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), advertised by the Staff Selection Commission. The written and physical tests were qualified by the appellant but he was declared unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination of Constable (GD) held on 20.07.2023 at the CRPF Group Centre, Bantalab on the grounds of ‘Scoliosis of Dorsal Spine, varicose veins in the right leg and flat foot (left)’. 03. The appellant was informed that he could apply for Review Medical Examination and he immediately applied for the same. Upon reexamination in the Review Medical Examination, he was again declared unfit only on account of flat foot (left). The appellant thereafter, on his own accord, approached the Government Medical College, Jammu, for removing of doubts regarding flat foot. The Consultant Doctor, after examining the appellant, vide its report dated 10.08.2023 opined that the appellant is having a condition of ‘Calcaneal inclination Angle <19° on left foot s/o mild (L) Flat Foot (pcs planus)’. 04. The appellant preferred the petition (WP(C) No. 2332/2023), challenging the findings of the Review Medical Board, as they were erroneous in view of the medical opinion of the Consultant Doctor at GMC, Jammu which showed an inclination angle of 18.5 degrees (L). 05. The learned writ court, while considering the contrary medical opinions of the CT/GD (SSC) RME Board and GMC, Jammu, vide its order dated 18.12.2024, directed the Principal, GMC Jammu, and CT/GD (SSC) RME Board to jointly nominate a team of doctors of concerned discipline for fresh examination of the appellant. The Medical Board, comprising doctors nominated by the Principal, GMC and the respondent-department, examined the appellant and reported vide report dated 02.01.2025 that the appellant is having a disability of ‘calcaneal inclination angle of 13° in the left foot s/o flat foot (pcs planus)’. The appellant was declared unfit for selection and, accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on 28.02.2025. 06. The appellant is aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2025 on the ground that the Medical Board has wrongly opined that the appellant is having a disability of calcaneal inclination angle of 13° in the left foot s/o flat foot (pcs planus)’, and that he ought not to have been disqualified on this ground, especially since he had qualified the written and physical tests. The Medical Board comprising of the Doctors nominated by the GMC have submitted a report which is repugnant to the earlier report dated 10.08.2023, as such, the same cannot be relied for declaring him unfit. It is also urged that rules of selection do not contemplate subjecting a candidate to be appointed as (GD) Constable to any kind of X-ray based assessment to ascertain whether the candidate a candidate has a flat foot or not, and that even if the defect existed, it was only a minor defect and should not constitute the stumbling block for appointment of the appellant as (GD) Constable in CAPF, particularly when the appellant has already passed both the written test and physical tests. 07. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was examined by a Medical Board comprising doctors from both GMC Jammu and the CT/GD (SSC) RME Board but both found him unfit on account of flat foot (left). The contention of the appellant that the respondents should have relied upon the earlier medical opinion of the Board is without any merit, as at that stage the appellant had not disclosed with the Doctors the fact that he was seeking appointment as Constable in the CAPF and was declared unfit on the ground of left flat foot. 08. It is well settled that the standard of physical fitness for Armed Forces and Police Forces is more stringent than those for civilian employment. It is the medical experts of these forces who are best placed to assess whether a candidate meets the required physical standards. Their findings cannot be discarded and would, in fact, prevail over the report of private or even other Government doctors. Page 4 of 4 09. In the present case, both sets of doctors, from GMC as well as CAPF, have found the appellant medically unfit for service on account of same defect. The plea that the defect is minor and may be overlooked cannot be accepted in the matters of recruitment to disciplined forces where medical standards are uniformly applied. 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled ‘K.M. Priyanka vs. Union of India and others’, WP(C) No. 10783/2020, has held as under: “8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces.” 11. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 12.11.2025 Michal Sharma/PS Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No