'Constitutional Courts Can Mould Reliefs To Prevent Injustice': Calcutta High Court Quashes Rejection Of Candidature In CAPF Selection

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the constitutional court under Article 226 is obligated to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his legal and constitutional rights to which he is entitled. Therefore, to ensure that no injustice is meted out to the citizens, the court is empowered to mould reliefs in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on medical grounds was set aside.

The Petitioner participated in the 2024 recruitment for constable (GD) in CAPFs, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. He was declared unfit in a medical examination due to carrying an angle below 10 degrees. However, in an X-ray conducted during his examination by the RME Board, his left elbow was shown to be carrying an angle of 15 degrees, thereby raising concerns about the findings of the designated medical board. These findings have been challenged in the present petition

The Petitioner submitted that since he has been declared fit by the BSF Hospital, Kolkata, there should be no impediments to his appointment. The writ petition challenging the rejection of his candidature was filed on time without any latches.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the final merit list for the selection process of 2024 has already been published and the vacancies have been carried forward to the 2025 selection process; therefore, accommodating the petitioner in the 2024 selection is no longer possible.

It was further submitted that once the petitioner was declared unfit by an official medical board, there was no provision for re-examination by the BSF Hospital. Therefore, the rejection of the candidature was totally justified and valid as it was based on the report of the designated medical board.

The court noted that the petitioner pursued his legal remedies diligently as he filed a writ petition immediately after his candidature was rejected; therefore, it cannot be said that there were any latches or delay on the part of the petitioner. Right to employment is protected under Article 19(g) of the Indian Constitution, and right to livelihood and dignity is recognised under Article 21; therefore, these rights cannot be taken away without following due process of law.

It further observed that it is the duty of the constitutional court under Article 226 that no one should be deprived of their legal right and constitutional rights to which he is entitled. The court can mould relief under this Article so that citizens can be given the benefits of legal and constitutional rights.

In light of the above discussion, the court held that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature based on the medical report issued on 01.11.2024 was set aside and quashed. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, it held that the Respondent shall accommodate the petitioner in the 2024 selection process itself if he is otherwise eligible to be appointed as per law. If there are no vacancies left in the 2024 selection process, the Respondent shall create a post to accommodate him.

Accordingly, the present petition was allowed.

Case Title: Ripan Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number:W.P.A. 28230 of 2024

Judgment Date: 03/07/2025

For the petitioners : Mr. Debasish Kundu, Advocate

For Union of India : Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order