Dismissed¶46

Perumala Kaushik Naidu v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2025WP/4164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CAPF (A.C) 2024 recruitment; medical unfitness; hypospadias coronal position; Medical Board 07.12.2024; Review Medical Board Report 10.12.2024; Revised Uniform Guidelines; Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015; Ministry of Home Affairs; rejection of candidature upheld; no challenge to guidelines; Article 226 mandamus refused; Articles 14 and 16; Section 151 CPC; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Justice Nyapathy Vijay; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

As per the Revised Uniform Guidelines in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, a person having the condition of 'HYPOSPADIAS-CORONAL POSITION' should be rejected; the Guidelines prescribe rejection of cases of hypospadias and epispadias or meatal stenosis. ¶43

Perumala Kaushik Naidu Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010078272025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

[3460]

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4164/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

PERUMALA KAUSHIK NAIDU, AGE 25 YEARS S/O P.V. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, D.NO. 36-91-56, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530008.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIAR, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶13

PRESIDING OFFICER OF MEDICAL RECRUITMENT BOARD, CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCE (A.C) - 2024, CHANDRAYANAGUTTA. CRPF- HOSPITAL, PUNE POST, MST BOARD, CH.CRPF, HYDERABAD- 500005.

¶14

DIG RECRUITMENT, ITBP-NODAL FORCE, BLOCK NO.2, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶15

ADDL DGMEDICAL, CAPFS, NSG AND AR, LEVEL-2, WING3,WEST BLOCK-1 R.K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents is as illegal, improper,

¶18

¶19

unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to reconduct the Special Review Medical Examination in presence of your kind concern at an early date and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to conside the representation dt. 15.12.2024 and 29-12-2024 made by the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU P

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶26

2.VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

W.P.No.4164 of 2025

¶31

ORDER :

¶32

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in rejecting the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of UPSC – CAPF (A.C) 2024.

¶33

The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows:-

¶34

The Petitioner, having requisite qualification and after qualifying in the UPSC-CAPF(A.C)-2024 written examination, appeared for PST/PET & MST/RME and was qualified for appointment. In the medical examination conducted on the Petitioner by the Medical Board on 07.12.2024, the Petitioner was found unfit on account of “HYPOSPADIAS-CORONAL POSITION”. The Review Medical Board also examined the case of the Petitioner and found the individual unfit for the aforesaid post vide Report, dated 10.12.2024. Questioning the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

In the counter affidavit filed, reliance was made on Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein revised uniform guidelines for recruitment of G.Os & NGOs in CAPFs & AR were prescribed. As per the said guidelines, the candidates who had “HYPOSPADIAS-

¶36

¶37

CORONAL POSITION” should be rejected and in that view, the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner need not be interfered.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no medical opinion was sought by the Respondents before rejecting the Petitioner treating him medically unfit and in the absence of any relativity to the discharge of duties, the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner cannot be sustained.

¶39

Learned standing counsel for the Central Government Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar submits that the candidates would have to work in the extreme weather conditions and the condition of the Petitioner could have a bearing on his health as he has to work in the critical areas.

¶40

The further contention of the counsel for the Petitioner was that “HYPOSPADIAS-CORONAL POSITION” cannot be considered to be a ground for rejection as per the Revised Uniform Guidelines vide Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 and therefore, the rejection cannot be sustained.

¶41

Heard Sri Venkat Subrahmanyam Naidu.P, learned counsel for the Petitioner and V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶42

¶43

The Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 provides for Revised Uniform Guidelines for recruitment and as per the same, the person having the condition of “HYPOSPADIAS-CORONAL POSITION” should be rejected. The relevant portion of the Revised Guidelines is as follows:

¶44

(c) Penis: Penis should be examined for any want, ulcer, discoloration discharge or tumour and these cases are to be rejected. The cases of hypospadias and epispadias or meatal stenosis should also be rejected. The individual is asked to retract the prepural skin and if failed, such cases of phimosis should be rejected.

¶45

In view of the above, rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner cannot be faulted and more so, in the absence of any challenge to the guidelines. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶46

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶48

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶49

Date: 03.11.2025 KLP/CHS

Perumala Kaushik Naidu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumala Kaushik Naidu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Mubashira Vs the Union Government of India

Shaik Kalesha Vs the State of Ap

Mucherla Thrimurthulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Veera Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Bhargav Swaroop Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A Sudhakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh