33 02.07. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab WPA 28415 of 2025 Niladry Shakhar Mondal Vs. Union of India and others. --------------- Mr. Biswarup Nandy. … For the petitioner. Mr. Shaunak Ghosh. … For the respondents. 1. The exception filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been declared unfit in the recruitment process of Constable (GD) in one of the Central Armed Police Forces (in short „CAPFs‟) under the examination process of 2025. 3. The facts are on a short conspectus. The petitioner after clearing his examinations was called for a medical examination, which found him to be unfit on the ground that he had „Flat Feet‟. The Review Medical Board sought for an expert opinion. The petitioner was examined at the Kalyani College of Medicine and JNM Hospital. The examination conducted found him to be mildly flat footed with an impression that the petitioner had pigmented nevi on his back, which was classified as “Becker Nevus”. It was also specifically mentioned in the report that there was no dermatologic lesion of ergonomic significance. Based on this report, the medical review was conducted and 2 the petitioner was found to have mild Flat Feet with Becker Nevus on his back. It is on this ground that the petitioner was found medically unfit and thus, refused appointment. 4. Mr. Nandy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles (in short „said Guidelines‟), a mild Flat Feet is not a ground for rejection and under Rule 7 of the said Guidelines, the same may be accepted as a trifling defect. These are minor acceptable defects, which can be ignored. In fact, he has also placed reliance on Chapter XII(B)(8). He contends that an anomaly, such nevi are only accepted as a disqualification anomaly if it is coupled with tumor or with an interference with the function or exposed to constant irritation. Becker Nevus of the petitioner, according to Mr. Nandy, is not one of the sort, which has a tumor or interferes with the function or exposed to constant irritation. The medical report based on investigation by the Doctors in the hospital have not opined to such extent. 5. Thus, according to Mr. Nandy, the Medical Review Board ought to have acted in accordance with the prescribed guidelines, which appear from the Guidelines for Medical Review Examination. The defects and/or infirmities pointed out by the Medical 3 Board ought to have been the only ground of consideration for review and a further ground as such Becker Nevus ought not to have been considered. However, since the same has been considered, a mere presence of a Becker Nevus on the skin not supported with any clinical findings or any corroboratory investigation reports, cannot be construed as a ground to declare the petitioner unfit. In fact, relying on the medical report from the hospital at Nadia, which was recommended by the Medical Board itself, it is clear that the petitioner does not have a disabling disease or condition, which can hamper the petitioner from discharging his duties as a Constable (GD). He, thus, cannot be declared medically unfit as the medical report of the Medical Board does not find him to be medically unfit. 6. Mr. Nandy has also placed reliance on two decisions of this Hon‟ble High Court in WPA 27519 of 2025 (Azarul Sk. vs. Union of India & Ors.) and WPA 28753 of 2025 (Kunal Ghosh vs. Union of India & Ors.). 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the medical report do not in unequivocal terms mention that the “Becker Nevus” cannot be aggravated at a later stage and that by itself is sufficient to declare the petitioner as medically unfit. He contends that the Becker Nevus may at some stage become aggravated and disable the 4 petitioner from discharging his duties. 8. I have heard the learned Advocate for the parties and perused the records. 9. The petitioner is an otherwise deserving candidate, who has been selected in the examination process to serve as Constable (GD) in one of the CAPFs. The only disabling factor on the initial medical examination was Flat Feet, which was found to be a mild Flat Feet on review and, therefore, not a disabling factor at all. The issue arose due to the Becker Nevus on the back of the petitioner, on account whereof the Review Medical Board is only to review the reference made by Medical Board. The reference was in respect of Flat Feet only. However, the issue of Becker Nevus was raised upon medical examination and was, therefore, considered by the Medical Review Board. 10. I find no infirmity in the Medical Review Board considering the issue of Becker Nevus to assess the eligibility of the petitioner. However, as to whether the Medical Board was justified in rejecting candidature of the petitioner as Constable (GD) has to be adjudicated in the light of the opinion of the Specialized Medical Team, which was called for by the authorities themselves. 11. The Specialized opinion was called for from the Hospital at Nadia as afore-stated. This opinion was rendered by two Specialist Doctors at the Hospital. 5 This referential opinion has not been challenged by the authorities nor has it been disregarded in any manner. On the contrary, the Medical Review Board has placed reliance on the opinion given by the Specialized Doctors. Having placed reliance on this opinion, the Board could not have differed from the opinion given by the Specialists. 12. The opinion of the Specialist is clear and unequivocal. They hold that the Becker Nevus appears in petitioner‟s back, but at the same time there is no finding that it is a disabling medical condition for the petitioner to discharge his duties or that such Becker Nevus can over a period of time become a disabling factor for the petitioner. 13. Having accepted this opinion of the Specialist, the Medical Review Board could not have differed from the opinion of the Specialist. 14. The Guidelines are clear that if a rejection is to be made, it must be on valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by the corroborative investigation reports and if required on the opinion of the Specialist Government Hospital/Medical College/Approved Private Medical Center. The opinion sought for was from a reputed Government Medical College, which has been accepted. This specialist investigation report does not in any manner warrant the conclusion that the petitioner is medically 6 unfit. In fact, it is just the opposite. 15. The Medical Review Board could have taken decision contrary to that of the specialist opinion. However, such decision would have been supported by reasons and would require a specific finding as to why the Medical Board in review opined differently from that of the specialist Medical Board/Doctors. There is no such reason nor any special circumstance disclosed as to why the petitioner was found unfit due to the Becker Nevus on the petitioner‟s back. 16. The decisions of this Hon‟ble Court in Kunal Ghosh (Supra) and Azarul Sk. (Supra) are clear and unequivocal that once a medical opinion has been given, which holds the petitioner to be fit, the Medical Review Board cannot come to a decision contrary to that of the Specialist‟s opinion, which is based on corroborated investigation report. 17. I am in respectful agreement with the decisions afore- stated. 18. In view of the afore-stated, the finding that the petitioner is unfit for appointment is set aside. The concerned authorities are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in any of the CAPFs where the vacancy available, within a period of four weeks from date. 19. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 7 20. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)