The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the medical fitness standards for recruitment into armed forces are determined independently by each force and cannot be compared across different services. This decision came while dismissing a petition filed by a candidate declared medically unfit by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) due to the absence of one testicle.
The petitioner, Shikhar Prasad, had applied for the post of Medical Officer (Assistant Commandant) in ITBP and was initially found medically unfit during the Medical Examination Test (MET) on the grounds of “Left Testis absent” and a history of orchidectomy (surgical removal of the testicle). His condition was confirmed in a subsequent Review Medical Board (RMB), which upheld the unfitness decision.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Defective Arbitration Filing Without Award Copy Is Legally Invalid, Cannot Extend Limitation
The petitioner argued that his condition stemmed from a 2014 surgical procedure due to testicular torsion and that, according to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) Guidelines, such a surgery should not disqualify a candidate. He also cited that other forces like the Indian Army and Air Force do not treat this as a disqualifying condition. Further, he relied on a medical prescription from AIIMS, which declared him physically fit.
However, the respondent authorities argued that the physical demands of roles in the paramilitary forces require strict adherence to high fitness standards. According to Paragraph 3(e), Chapter XIII of the CAPF Guidelines, both testicles must be present in the scrotum for a candidate to be deemed medically fit. The court accepted this, noting that the guideline specifically mentions that conditions like undescended or atrophic testis are grounds for disqualification.
Read Also:- Delhi HC Reserves Verdict on Parents’ Petition Against DPS Dwarka Over Fee Hike and Student Expulsions
"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," the Court observed.
The Court ruled that medical assessments by expert boards should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or procedural error. Citing multiple precedents, the bench emphasized judicial restraint in cases involving specialized medical evaluations.
“In matters of medical evaluation, courts should exercise restraint and avoid substituting their judgment for that of medical experts… The function of the Court can only be to examine whether the manner in which the candidate was assessed inspires confidence,” it stated.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail to PFI Leader A.S. Ismail, Citing Improved Medical Condition
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s argument seeking parity with other paramilitary or military forces:
“Medical standards are decided by the respective forces. Therefore, a disease not considered unfit by one force does not bind another to follow the same standard.”
It concluded that the Review Medical Board’s decision was based on established guidelines and expert assessment, and thus, there was no ground for judicial interference. The Court found no legal or procedural error in the evaluation and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava and Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj CGSC, Mr. Amit Kaushik and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advs for Respondent
Case title: SP v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3776/2025
