2025:HHC:23963 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8471 of 2024 Date of Decision: July 23, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Vishal ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner Ms. Manisha Thamta, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J (Oral) Petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Motor Mechanic) pursuant an advertisement issued vide No. 11/2022. Clause 4(e) pertains to the minimum medical standard, which reads as under: “e) Minimum Medical Standard: Eye sight- The minimum distance vision shall be 6/6 and 6/9 for both eyes without correction i.e. without wearing spectacles or lenses:- Visual acuity unaided (near vision) Uncorrected visual acuity (Distant Vision) Refraction Colour vision Remarks Better eye Worse eye Better eye Worse eye N6 N9 6/6 6/9 Visual correction of any kind is not permitted even by glasses CP III by ISHIHARA In right handed person, the Right eye is better eye and vice versa. Binocular vision is required. 2025:HHC:23963 - 2 - (i) A colour blind person shall not be eligible for recruitment. If at any stage of service career a person is found to be colour blind, he will be medically boarded out as per SHAPE policy in vogue in the ITBPF. Phase-III DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION Candidates shortlisted in order of merit, as per category wise number of vacancies will be put through Detailed Medical Examination to assess their fitness. The Detailed Medical Examination of the candidate will be conducted in terms of Uniform Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination for GOs and NGOs in CAPFs and AR issued vide MHA U.O. No.A.VI- 1/2014-Rectt.(SSB) dated 20.05.2015 and as amended from time to time by the Government. REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION (i) All candidates declared unfit during Detailed Medical Examination (DME) will be allowed to undergo Review Medical Examination (RME), provided they give their written consent by appending their signature on the intimation indicating the reasons for being unfit as per Annexure-‘VII’. (ii) The candidates who have been declared unfit in DME will be briefed about the procedure for submission of their consent for RME at the venue. (iii) The RME of candidate will be conducted in continuation of DME preferably on the next day of DME. The consent for RME as per Annexure- ‘VII’ duly signed by the candidate should be submitted within 24 hours after he/she is informed of his/her unfitness in DME. (iv) The decision of ITBPF Board of Medical Officer shall be final for declaring a candidate Fit or Unfit in DME/RME. 2. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category appeared in physical efficiency test (PET) under roll No. 1891003055 and qualified the same. Admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing in computer based test on 21.12.2023 under Roll No. 1110101100325. Petitioner qualified this test also and was called for appearing in practical (Skill) test under Roll 2025:HHC:23963 - 3 - No. 1891003055 on 11.6.2024 at 7.00 AM. Again petitioner qualified the same. Petitioner appeared in medical examination test on 12.6.2024 and his vision was found 6/12 and 6/18. His Review Medical Examination was conducted in the presence of Medical Board on 13.6.2024 and again his vision was found 6/12 in right eye and 6/18 in left eye and he was declared unfit as per Annexure P-7. 3. Petitioner, got himself examined at Civil Hospital, Ratti, Mandi on 11.7.2024 and at Civil Hospital Sundernagar on 11.7.2024, at both places his vision, as per petitioner was found to be 6/6 in both the eyes. Yet, the petitioner got himself examined at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk on 12.7.2024, where his vision is stated to be 6/6 in both the eyes, as per medical slip Annexure P-10. 4. On this, petitioner made representation to Director-General, ITBP , praying for re-examination. On 24.7.2024, Director-General asked Deputy Inspector-General, North East Frontier, ITBP to take appropriate action. In the meantime, vide Annexure P-13, result of the selection process was declared, and petitioner was shown unfit in DME and RME. Petitioner seeks to lay challenge to the same, with directions to the respondents to conduct medical examination of the petitioner afresh on a machine, on the ground that his vision has been found normal by three Government Hospitals. 5. As per reply filed by respondents, there is a provision for Review Medical Examination, which was conducted on 13.6.2024 at Composite Hospital, Chandigarh by General board. It is stated in reply to para-7 as under: 2025:HHC:23963 - 4 - “During training and force stenos activities above condition likely to be aggravated as such decision taken by the RME board for declaring petitioner medically UNFIT is strictly according to provisions contained in Office Memorandum of MHA’s revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination for recruitment of GO’s and NGOs in the CAPFS & AR issued by A.VI-1/2014-Rectt (SSB) dated 20th May, 2015, ibid OM guidelines. The petitioner declared UNFIT as per para-6(5) of ibid O.M. guidelines in which stipulated that Law Standard Vision” 6. From the contents of petition and reply filed by respondents, it is clear that the petitioner has been subjected to Review Medical Examination, as per provision contained in the advertisement. It is also an admitted case of the parties that decision of ITBPF Board of Medical Officer shall be final for declaring a candidate Fit or Unfit in DME/RME. 7. It is borne from the pleadings that the petitioner was found UNFIT in DME and thereafter in RME. The petitioner of his own got himself examined at three Government Hospitals, for which neither he was permitted by the respondents, nor there is any provision in the advertisement or the guidelines on the issue. On top of everything, the petitioner has not laid challenge to the provision of advertisement which holds decision of Medical Board to be final in the matter. 8. An important aspect of the matter is that on two occasions, petitioner was found unfit by medial officers of the respondents and on three occasions, medical officers of State Hospitals he was found to have normal vision i.e. 6/6 in both the eyes. However, instead of delving into the issue of correctness of opinion rendered by both the sets of medical officers, it would be apt to delve 2025:HHC:23963 - 5 - into the issue that when the petitioner has not laid challenge to the provision of advertisement which stipulates that decision of DME/RME board would be final, whether this court can go into issue of actual vision of the petitioner. 9. At this stage, this court would like to refer to a judgment passed by Delhi High Court, in WP(C) No. 3776/2025 & CM Appl. 17557/2025, titled Shikhar Prasad v. Union of India & Ors, decided on 28.4.2025, wherein, said High Court held as under: “Conclusion 19. We have perused the CAPF Gudelines, which is applicable to the facts of the present matter, and which specifically mentions the grounds of disqualification for a person who is medically unfit. 20. We may also observe that there are several decisions by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, where it has been specifically held that the decision of the medical board are not to be interfered until and unless material irregularity or illegality is shown in the same. 21. We have seen the MET report (appended as Annexure R-2 with the short affidavit on behalf of the respondents) as well as the Review Medical Examination report (appended as Annexure R-3 with the short affidavit on behalf of the respondents). In both the reports, the petitioner has been found to be medically unfit. 22. The basic difference between civil employment and employment in paramilitary forces is that the required physical strength is must for a person who is seeking an employment in the paramilitary forces. 23. The Indian paramilitary forces operate in varied terrains including high altitude areas, deserts and other difficult regions where personnel are exposed to extreme weather conditions, physical strains and other potential health hazards. Given these demands, the forces require the personnel to be in an optimal physical condition to ensure their safety, effectiveness and adequate service to be rendered to the force. 24. The petitioner has not challenged the validity or applicability of the CAPF Guidelines itself, which is designed to ensure that all personnel meet the 2025:HHC:23963 - 6 - physical and medical demands of service without undue risk to themselves or others. Notably, the petitioner‟s conditions fall clearly within the specifications that render him ineligible for service under the existing CAPF Guidelines. This fact also answers the apprehension of the petitioner that a person can‟t be declared medically unfit for having single testis. 25. Now, insofar the contention of the petitioner with respect to the point that the CAPF Guidelines does not specify the „surgical removal of a testis due to torsion‟ as a ground for disqualification is concerned, it is observed that during the MET, the petitioner was declared medically unfit on account of „Left Testis absent. H/o Left Orchidectomy‟. 26. Pursuant to the above, the concerned Presiding Officer made a communication seeking opinion from the department regarding the point as to whether the petitioner is suitable for the subject post since the CAPF Guidelines, at Paragraph no. 6 (28) on page no. 8, doesn‟t specify the aforesaid condition as a ground for rejection, as also contended by the petitioner hereinabove. It is pertinent to mention here that following the aforesaid communication, the RMB, after taking into consideration the communication, Paragraph no. 6 (28) of the CAPF Guidelines as well as the fact that the petitioner has single testis in scrotum due to surgical removal of left testis, concurred with the decision of MET, thereby, declaring the petitioner „unfit‟ on 22.03.2025; and the same is apparent from the perusal of the RMB‟s report. Therefore, there is no scope for further deliberation on the point of petitioner‟s medical fitness. 27. Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioner‟s contention does not hold any water and that the RMB has rightly appreciated the entire facts and circumstances including the CAPF Guidelines. 28. The contention of the petitioner as regard to the parity with other paramilitary forces/army is also of no help as the medical standards are decided by the respective forces. Therefore, a disease which has not been categorised for the purpose of declaring a person unfit in any paramilitary force/army will not bind such other paramilitary force to have the same standards. 29. Therefore, keeping in view the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the RMB‟s decision to declare the 2025:HHC:23963 - 7 - petitioner medically unfit for service is a well-reasoned and professional assessment based on the petitioner‟s medical condition. 30. The RMB‟s expertise in evaluating the petitioner‟s fitness for service, considering specific requirements, and challenges of the force has not been successfully impeached by the petitioner. 31. Given the policies clear stipulation, the RMB‟s assessment and the inherent demands of service of the paramilitary forces, we do not find any legal or factual basis to interfere with the decision of the respondents, by which the petitioner has been declared medically unfit for service. 32. The respondent‟s requirement for the personnel to be in perfect health is not merely a matter of preference but a necessity for operational effectiveness and safety. 33. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition and thus, the same stands dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of. 34. No order as to costs. 35. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.” 10. In similar situation, Union of India v. Yogesh Chhetri, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1469, Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s finding that once a properly constituted Review Medical Board in a BSF recruitment case has given its opinion, that decision is final and in no manner open to further review, absent statutory authority 11. From the aforesaid judgment following issues are settled, which this Court also concedes viz. (i) Nature of employment in para-military forces requires highest standards of medical fitness, which cannot be compromised. (ii) Court cannot sit over the opinion of medical Board and same cannot be interfered with, at least not when no unfairness has been attributed by the petitioner to the act of the Board and further when 2025:HHC:23963 - 8 - no challenge has been laid either to the conditions in the advertisement regarding decision of Medical Board to be final or the CAPF guidelines, which govern the field. 12. In the present case, straw to which the petitioner clings is his repeated medical examination in Government Hospitals, sans any recommendations by the respondents or any provision in the advertisement of CAPF guidelines. 13. It is settled law, in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, courts should refrain from interfering with the expert opinions rendered by duly constituted Medical Boards, unless there is a clear allegation of mala fides, bias, or procedural irregularity. This principle is grounded in the recognition that Medical Boards possess specialized expertise in medical assessments, which courts are not equipped to second-guess. Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently upheld this stance, emphasizing that judicial interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the Medical Board's opinion is demonstrably arbitrary or lacks a reasoned basis. In the absence of compelling evidence indicating procedural impropriety or bias, the opinions of Medical Boards should be accorded due respect and should not be subject to judicial interference in the ordinary course. 14. Though, present is an issue concerning public employment, but nonetheless keeping in view the highest medical standards, which the post in question demands, it is for the employer to set its medical standards and to test the same. Had the petitioner alleged any imputation of unfairness to the medical board or challenged the validity of the clause regarding decision of the 2025:HHC:23963 - 9 - Board to be final, things would have been different. Petitioner has merely sought his second medical examination, which neither the advertisement provides nor the guidelines, nor this Court deems it fit to interfere with for the foregoing reasons. 15. In view of above, present petition lacks merit, and is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 23, 2025 (Vikrant)