1 CGHC010060752026 2026:CGHC:36943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1748 of 2026 Numesh Kumar Banjara S/o Shri Thannu Singh Banjara Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Lalpur, Post- Naharganj, Police Station- Motinala, Tahsil- Bhichiya, Distt. Mandla (Madhya Pradesh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Kartavya Bhawan, 03, Janpath, New Delhi, Pin Code 110001 2. Under Secretary To The Government Of India Staff Selection Commission (Ssc), Minsitry Of Personnel Public Grievances And Pensions, Block No. 12, Central Office Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003 3. Directorate General Ministry Of Home Affairs, Crpf (Recruitment Branch), East Block-07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, Pin- 110 066 4. Presiding Officer Dv/dmd Board, Central Reserve Police Force (Crpf), Bharni, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Members Dv/dmd Board, Central Reserve Police Force (Crpf), Bharni, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Nande along with Mr. Kastubh Nande, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ UOI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 2 18/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 2 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner successfully qualified the written examination with 124.47 marks and also cleared the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test. However, during the medical examination, he was declared unfit on the grounds of Melanocytic Naevus on the forehead and blocked ear canal. He submits that subsequently, the Medical Board found that blocked ear canal was not a disease and the petitioner was declared unfit only on account of Melanocytic Naevus. Learned counsel further submits that, on examination by Dr. Satyaki Ganguly, Additional Professor, AIIMS, Raipur, the petitioner was diagnosed with congenital melanocytic naevus, which was certified to be harmless, non-infective and not likely to interfere with the discharge of his duties. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Divyanshu Singh Vs. The Union Of India (Special leave to Appeal (c) No. 13758 of 2025). Therefore, the petitioner submits that the medical disqualification on the said ground is unjustified. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was declared unfit by the Review Medical Board in accordance with the medical standards prescribed under Chapter IX-XII-B, Para 8 of the MHA Recruitment Guidelines dated May, 2015, 3 which specifically provides that congenital or acquired skin anomalies, including nevi, which interfere with function or are exposed to constant irritation are disqualifying. He submits that the petitioner has a congenital melanocytic nevus on the forehead, which, considering the requirement of wearing headgear during service, would be exposed to constant irritation. Therefore, the Review Medical Board, after obtaining the opinion of the Skin Specialist, rightly declared the petitioner unfit strictly in terms of the aforesaid guidelines. Hence, no interference is warranted with the medical assessment. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully cleared the written examination as well as the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test for the post of Constable (GD). The petitioner was thereafter declared medically unfit on the ground of congenital melanocytic naevus on the forehead. Though the Review Medical Board has relied upon Chapter IX-XII-B, Para 8 of the MHA Recruitment Guidelines dated May, 2015, the said provision does not render every congenital naevus, by itself, a disqualification. The disqualification contemplated therein is in respect of such congenital or acquired skin anomaly which either interferes with the functioning of the candidate or is exposed to constant irritation. 4 5. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record the medical opinion of Dr. Satyaki Ganguly, Additional Professor, AIIMS, Raipur, wherein the petitioner has been diagnosed with congenital melanocytic naevus and the same has been certified to be harmless, non-infective and not likely to interfere with the discharge of his duties. Thus, the medical opinion relied upon by the petitioner does not indicate that the said condition interferes with the functioning of the petitioner. 6. It is true that the Review Medical Board has opined that the location of the naevus on the forehead may expose it to constant irritation on account of wearing headgear. However, the respondents have not placed any material on record to establish that the particular naevus suffered by the petitioner is, in fact, subjected to constant irritation or that it would cause any functional impediment in the discharge of his duties. A mere possibility of irritation, without any supporting medical finding, cannot by itself be treated as satisfying the requirement of the aforesaid guideline. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Divyanshu Singh (supra), while dealing with a similar issue relating to medical unfitness in recruitment to the CAPF, has relied upon the subsequent opinion of AIIMS, a premier medical institution, and held that where the medical ground on which the candidate was declared unfit no longer survives and there is no other impediment, the candidate deserves to be considered for appointment. 5 8. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court categorically observed at para 7 that the respondents will closely observe the performance of the appellant while he is on probation to see that the suspected ailment, which has not been found at this stage by the Medical Board of AIIMS, does not cause any impediment in the performance of his duties. 9. In the facts of the present case, particularly in view of the specific medical opinion of AIIMS, Raipur that the congenital melanocytic naevus is harmless, non-infective and does not interfere with the discharge of duties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought not to have been denied consideration for appointment solely on the basis of the said condition. The impugned medical disqualification, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. If the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions, his candidature shall be considered for appointment in accordance with law. Needless to say, such consideration shall be subject to the petitioner's merit and other eligibility conditions. 11. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to observe the performance of the petitioner while he is on probation to see that the suspected ailment does not cause any impediment in the performance of duties of the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention here that this Court by order dated 9.3.2026 had directed that one post of Constable in 6 the category of petitioner shall be kept vacant. Thus, while considering the case of the petitioner, this fact be kept in mind. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti