Medical Standards For Appointment Decided By Forces, Aspirants Can't Seek Parity With Other Paramilitary Forces/Army: Delhi High Court

While declining relief to a man deemed medically unfit for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force for the reason of having a single testicle, a division bench of Justices C.Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed,

“The contention of the petitioner as regard to the parity with other paramilitary forces/army is also of no help as the medical standards are decided by the respective forces. Therefore, a disease which has not been categorised for the purpose of declaring a person unfit in any paramilitary force/army will not bind such other paramilitary force to have the same standards.”

Petitioner submitted that his candidature was rejected solely on the basis of having one testis in scrotum and not on the ground of being otherwise medically unfit for recruitment to the subject post.

He claimed that in other paramilitary forces like Army, Indian Air Force, undescended testis is not a ground for declaring a person medically unfit.

Petitioner also submitted that his testicle was surgically removed and in terms of Guidelines for recruitment In Central Armed Police Forces And Assam Rifles, surgical removal of testis is not a ground for disqualification.

The Respondent-authorities on the other hand submitted that the highest standards of physical fitness are expected from the candidate seeking recruitment to the subject post due to the arduous nature of the duties.

They referred to Paragraph 3 (e) of Chapter XIII of the CAPF Guidelines which prescribes that the medical board should examine whether 'both the testes are in the scrotal sac and of normal size'. As such, it was contended that Petitioner does not meet the prescribed medical standards.

In view of the above, the High Court agreed that Petitioner's condition falls clearly within the specifications that render him ineligible for service under the existing CAPF Guidelines. It observed,

“In matters of medical evaluation, courts should exercise restraint and avoid substituting their judgment for that of medical experts under its writ jurisdiction, lest it undermine the recruitment process as the decision of such medical experts is based on their years of experience, knowledge in the particular field and established guidelines.”

In this regard the Court relied on Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh (2024) where the High Court held that medical officers are the best experts to judge whether a prospective candidate, who is likely to be with the force in the time to come, fulfils the medical standards.

The Court went on to emphasize that employment in paramilitary forces is different from civil employment as the former requires physical strength.

“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. Given these demands, the forces require the personnel to be in an optimal physical condition to ensure their safety, effectiveness and adequate service to be rendered to the force,” the Court observed and dismissed the plea.

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 566

Case no.: W.P.(C) 3776/2025

Click here to read order