1 / 6 CGHC010071462026 2026:CGHC:30790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2100 of 2026 Arjun Sodi S/o Sodi Deva Aged About 26 Years Resident of Girdalpara, Kerlapal, Chikhpalli, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Through- Secretary, Office At North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Directorate General C.R.P.F. East Block No. 7, Level-4, Sector-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066 3 - Inspector General of Police Chhattisgarh Sector, C.R.P.F. Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Second In Command Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board, Sukma Centre, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents / UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG along with Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, CGC (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking direction towards the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.22 10:41:06 +0530 2 / 6 the post of Constable (GD), CRPF under the Scheduled Tribe Category for District Sukma (C.G.) pursuant to the advertisement Annexure P/2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF under the recruitment meant for ST candidates of Sukma District and successfully qualified the PET/PST as well as the written examination. Thereafter, he appeared in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), wherein he was declared medically unfit on account of a vertical surgical scar over the umbilical region. Even in the Review Medical Examination (RME), his candidature was rejected by observing "umbilical hernia with laparotomy scar over anterior abdominal wall". He would next submit that the petitioner had undergone hernia surgery in the year 2017 and the surgery was successful. The scar is old, well-healed and has no adverse effect upon his physical fitness. The petitioner also obtained a USG examination dated 22.12.2025, which reflected a normal abdomen. He would next submit that the respondents have mechanically declared the petitioner unfit merely because of the presence of a surgical scar without properly appreciating that the petitioner does not presently suffer from any functional disability. According to the petitioner, the rejection of his candidature is contrary to the Medical Guidelines governing CRPF recruitment. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned medical opinion be set aside and the petitioner be directed to undergo examination before an independent Medical Board with consequential consideration for appointment. 3 / 6 3. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India submits that the petitioner was not declared medically unfit merely because of an old surgical scar. During the DME, the petitioner was initially noticed to have a vertical surgical scar over the umbilical region. Thereafter, on the petitioner's appeal, he was subjected to Review Medical Examination, wherein he was referred to a General Surgeon (Specialist) at Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jagdalpur. He would next submit that after specialist examination, the petitioner was found to be suffering from midline abdominal defect/protrusion (incisional hernia) along with an old healed laparotomy scar. The expert surgeon opined that incisional hernia signifies weakness of the abdominal wall and carries the risk of recurrence, complications and limitations during strenuous physical activities which are integral to service in CRPF. Consequently, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for "umbilical hernia with laparotomy scar over anterior abdominal wall" in accordance with the Medical Guidelines for Recruitment, 2015, particularly para 6(18) and para 9(VIII). 4. He would next submit that the petitioner was examined by the competent Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board, and the opinion was rendered after specialist consultation. The scope of judicial review in matters involving expert medical opinion is extremely limited. The respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shikhar Prasad v. Union of India & Others (WPC No.3776/2025 & CM APPL. 17557/2025, decided on 15/05/2025), wherein similar medical standards applicable to paramilitary forces were 4 / 6 upheld. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Standard Test and written examination. However, during the Detailed Medical Examination, he was declared medically unfit owing to the presence of a vertical surgical scar over the umbilical region. On the petitioner's request, a Review Medical Examination was conducted and the petitioner was referred to a General Surgeon (Specialist), who, upon examination, found that the petitioner was suffering from midline abdominal defect/protrusion (incisional hernia) along with an old healed laparotomy scar. Based upon the said specialist opinion, the Review Medical Board declared the petitioner medically unfit for "umbilical hernia with laparotomy scar over anterior abdominal wall". 7. The principal contention of the petitioner is that he has merely an old healed surgical scar and, therefore, he could not have been declared medically unfit. However, the medical records produced by the respondents clearly disclose that the declaration of unfitness was not based merely on the existence of an old scar. Rather, after specialist evaluation, the petitioner was found to be suffering from incisional hernia, which, according to the expert opinion, indicates weakness of the abdominal wall and carries a risk of recurrence and complications during strenuous physical activities required in the CRPF. 5 / 6 8. The Medical Board and the Review Medical Board have recorded objective findings after specialist consultation and have declared the petitioner medically unfit in terms of the applicable Recruitment Medical Guidelines, 2015. The petitioner has not placed any material demonstrating that the findings recorded by the expert medical authorities are perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the prescribed medical standards. Mere production of a subsequent USG report showing normal abdominal condition cannot override the opinion of the duly constituted specialist Medical Board, particularly when the specialist has clinically found incisional hernia and has assigned reasons for declaring the petitioner medically unfit. 9. In respect of relief sought for by the petitioner at para 10.3 of the petition is concerned, it is noteworthy to mention here that on an earlier occasion on the own request of the petitioner he has been sent for Review Medical Examination and the petitioner was referred to a General Surgeon (Specialist), who, upon examination, found that the petitioner was suffering from midline abdominal defect/protrusion (incisional hernia) along with an old healed laparotomy scar. Thus, again sending the petitioner to RME is not required at this juncture. 10. It is well settled that the opinion of an expert Medical Board deserves due deference and the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily substitute its own opinion in place of expert medical assessment unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the governing rules. No such exceptional circumstance is made out in the present case. In view 6 / 6 of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondents declaring the petitioner medically unfit for appointment in the CRPF. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu