The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside the rejection of a CAPF Constable (GD) aspirant on medical grounds solely due to a facial birthmark, declaring the decision as arbitrary and unjustified.
In a significant ruling, Justice M. A. Chowdhary stated:
“The candidature of the petitioner had been rejected wrongly and arbitrarily… without stating any reasons as to how the birthmark described as ‘Port Wine Stain’ on the face could impede the function/training of a Constable (GD).”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Son and Daughter-in-Law Cannot Claim Residence in Parents' Home Without Legal Right
Background of the Case
Anish Rajulia, a 22½-year-old from Samba district, had applied for the position of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces. He possessed an ‘A’ Grade NCC certificate and had also participated in district-level football tournaments. He successfully cleared the written exam, Physical Standard Test (PST), and Physical Efficiency Test (PET).
However, during the medical phase, both the Detailed and Review Medical Boards declared him unfit due to a “Port Wine Stain” on his right cheek—a vascular birthmark. Notably, neither board provided any reasoning or evidence showing that the birthmark caused any functional disability or would hinder his training.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Deportation of Sri Lankan Tamil, Seeks Centre's Response on Request to Visit Embassy
Represented by Advocate Sheikh Altaf Hussain, Rajulia argued that his rejection violated the Revised Uniform Guidelines dated 31.05.2021, which disqualify candidates only if congenital skin conditions interfere with functionality or cause persistent irritation. The guidelines under Clause 6(20) and Clause XII(B)(8) were particularly relevant.
Justice Chowdhary emphasized:
“The cryptic observations of the Boards merely declare the petitioner as unfit due to 'Port Wine Stain' without explaining how the condition impairs his duties.”
Read Also:- Extraordinary Relief by J&K High Court: Orders Repatriation of 63-Year-Old Woman Deported to Pakistan
The Court also highlighted procedural irregularities. The Review Medical Certificate was dated 09.10.2024 but signed on 12.10.2024, raising serious doubts about its authenticity.
“The credibility of the certificate is doubtful, prepared in a casual manner,” noted the Court.
Supporting medical opinion from Government Medical College, Jammu, confirmed that the birthmark was benign, non-infectious, and posed no health risk.
Read Also:- Arbitration Not Barred by PMLA Asset Attachment or ED/CBI Investigations, Rules Delhi High Court
Precedents Cited
The Court drew parallels with Ashok Dukiya v. Union of India, where the Rajasthan High Court quashed a similar rejection over a birthmark. Other supportive judgments included:
- Ramkala Varma v. Union of India
- Yogesh v. Union of India & Anr. (Punjab & Haryana HC)
- Sunil Kumar v. Union of India (J&K HC)
These rulings collectively stressed that minor congenital skin conditions without functional impact cannot justify rejection from security forces.
The Court concluded:
“The medical opinion formulated in the impugned reports does not show unsuitability. The candidature of the petitioner seems to have been illegally and arbitrarily rejected.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed both the Detailed and Review Medical Reports and directed the authorities to constitute a Revised Medical Board within 8 weeks.
Case Title: Anish Rajulia vs Union of India
