08.07.2026 29 sdas WPA 2874 of 2026 Sri Rahul Mahato Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Moloy Bhattacharjee Mr. Subhajyoti Ghosh Mr. Sukhendu Bikash Mukherjee .….. for the petitioner Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal Mr. Tapan Bhanja ……for the UOI 1. The petitioner is a participant in the selection process to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) Examination, 2025. 2. The petitioner was successful in the written examination but was found unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Report, which, on review, also found him unfit due to nevus depigmentosus (hereinafter referred to as the “said ailment”). 3. The petitioner has challenged this report by Review Medical Examination (RME) Board in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that by the report of the DME, he was found unfit on two grounds, which on review, was found to be unfit on one ground i.e. of nevus depigmentosus on December 3, 2025. He further submits that the disease does not fall within one of the 2 disabling diseases under the Medical Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles (hereinafter referred to as the “said Guidelines”). The guidelines do not stipulate the said ailment to be a ground for rejection of a successful candidate as an unfit person. The petitioner may have that condition, but that does not make him unfit to discharge the duties as a Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, has placed reliance on a decision in WPA No. 27659 of 2025 (Ankan Pal vs. Union of India & Ors.). 6. Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, has made the following submissions. 7. Clause 2(h) of the Guidelines provides for an omnibus clause which brings within its fold diseases which may not have been specifically spelt out as grounds for rendering a candidate unfit. According to him, the cause of rejection, if not mentioned, has to be correlated to an infirmity with reference to either known medical literature on the subject or on a parameter set forth. 8. He further submits that the report filed by the authorities, pursuant to an order of Court, specifies that the condition of the petitioner is a “congenital skin anomaly which may need regular monitoring by the dermatologist, hence not fit for force duties”. 3 9. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of this case. 10. It is admitted that the petitioner was a successful candidate in the written examination. It is equally admitted that the petitioner was declared as medically unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Report and the Review Medical Examination (RME) Report. However, the report of the RME sets forth an ailment which is not listed as a disease that will disable a candidate on medical ground. 11. Even if one were to consider Clause 2(h) of the Guidelines there has to be a finding by the RME that the disease/ailment which they have found in the incumbent is one that would render him infirm and would also have to be in consonance with known medical literature on the subject and any set forth parameter. 12. The decision of RME seems quite arbitrary as there is no reference to any medical literature nor to any set forth parameter. It is, thus, impossible to relate the finding of the RME report with the stipulations provided under Clause 2(h) of the Guidelines. This attempt, to do so by the learned Advocate for the respondents, is commendable but fails the basic test that at the time of considering the said disease/infirmity of the petitioner, the RME did not consider the same in the light of Clause 2(h) of the said Guidelines. 4 13. Further the entire purpose of having a review of the report by the DME is to ensure that the Review Medical Board conducts an investigation with the help of specialist doctors. 14. The report relied upon by the RME, appended at page no. 8 of the report, also records the mere disease as set forth in the report itself. There is not a word that the condition would render the petitioner unfit to serve in the forces. The condition of the petitioner is also not one which has been stipulated as a benchmark parameter in the said Guidelines to disabilitate the petitioner from rendering service in the armed forces. 15. The decision relied upon by Mr. Bhattacharjee of the Hon’ble Court is clear as it also dealt with the exact situation as in this petitioner’s case of nevus depigmentosus. In fact, on the basis of a report filed by the AIIMS, Kalyani, it was held that the disease was not heritable and was non progressive. It was also opined that there was no indication that such a disease would disable the petitioner from serving in the armed forces. 16. The closest disabling factor relied in the Guidelines is found from Clause XIIB(8) which states as under : “8. Congenital or acquired anomalies of the skin such as nevi or vascular tumors that interfere with function, or are exposed to constant irritation are disqualifying. History of Dysplastic Nevus Syndrome is disqualifying.” 17. From this stipulation it appears that the skin problem which has been specified as nevi or vascular 5 tumors which interfere with the function or are exposed to constant irritation that are disqualifying. 18. The report of the RME does not give any such opinion that there is tumor or that the skin condition is such that it will interfere in the discharge of duties by the petitioner if he is employed in the said post. 19. In view of the aforestated, it is clear that the RME report merely states that the petitioner has a skin infraction but does not mention that this condition is such that he will not be able to discharge his functions, if employed as a Constable in the armed forces. 20. Thus, I do not find any such circumstance to conclude that the RME report holds the petitioner to have any condition which will disable him from discharging his duties. 21. In view of the aforestated, respondent no. 5 is directed to recommend the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) to the respondent no. 4 by August 15, 2026, provided the petitioner fulfils all other eligibility criterias as set forth by the authorities subject to availability of the posts. 22. On the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, time to make recommendation is extended till September 15, 2026 by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 4. 23. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 6 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)