Sandeep Kumar vs the Union of India Thro. Its Secretary Ministry of Mome Affairs

1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Department of Personnel and Training), North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi

¶10

2. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Commercial Karmik, Block No.12, Central Government Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003

¶11

3. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi

¶12

4. The Director General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch) East Block 07, Level 4, Sector 1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi – 110 006

¶13

5. Regional Director (Western Region), Staff Selection Commissioner, 1^st Floor, South Wing, Pratishtha Bhawan,

1 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

101, Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400020

¶18

6. The Detailed Medical Examination Board,

¶19

Through its Presiding Officer, CRPF Pune, GC CRPF, Pune – 410507

¶20

7. The Review Medical Examination Board,

¶21

Through its Presiding Officer, CRPF Pune, GC CRPF, Pune-410507 ….Respondents

¶22

Mr. Bhushan Raut a/w Mr. Amol Kale, Vipul Patil, Shubha Shirsat i/b Mr. A. G. Kale, Advocates for Petitioner.

¶23

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Mr. Ashutosh Misra, Advocates for Respondents.

¶24

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 12^th JANUARY, 2026

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶26

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶27

by the consent of the parties.

¶28

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenges the Medical Examination Report and Unfit Memorandum dated 14^th November 2025, issued by Respondent

2 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

No. 6, and prays that the same be quashed and set aside, as it adversely affects his candidature for the post of ‘Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), as well as for the posts of Constable (General Duty) and SSF, Rifleman (General Duty), Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025 Examinations’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2025Examination’).

¶33

The Petitioner has been declared unfit on account of ‘Scoliotic Deformity’, which was observed in the thoracic spine with convexity towards the left side on the X-ray of the chest. By a Review Medical Examination Report dated 19^th November 2025, the opinion of the Detailed Medical Examination Board was upheld.

¶34

It is undisputed that the deformity has been diagnosed as a Cobb angle of 5 degrees, which indicates that the Petitioner’s spine is bent leftwards by 5 degrees.

¶35

In the backdrop of the above undisputed facts, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses A, B, C, D and E which read as under:

3 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

“A) Kindly Allow the Present Writ Petition.

¶40

B) By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature, may kindly quash the impugned Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Report/Memorandum Unfit dated 14/11/2025 issued by Respondent no. 6 and to further quash the Review Medical Examination (RME) Report dated 19/11/2025 issued by respondent No.7.

¶41

C) By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to direct the respondents to select/appoint the petitioner as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau, if he is otherwise found meritorious.

¶42

D) Or By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to direct the respondents to re-examine the petitioner for Medical Fitness as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau in Examination-2025, if he is otherwise found meritorious.

¶43

E) Pending hearing and final decision of present writ petition, Petitioner seeks stay on the recruitment process/appointment; or a direction to keep one post vacant subject to outcome of this Petition, and for that purpose issued necessary order.”

4 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the Respondents. With their assistance, we have perused the medical fitness Certificates as well as the uniform guidelines for Medical Examination Test (NTD) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG and AR.

¶48

Since the fact of the Petitioner’s deformity is undisputed, the Petitioner relies on the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court on 04^th September 2020 in WP (C) No. 5969/2020 & CM No. 21577/2020 (for interim relief) (Dr. Vani Vishwanathan v. Union of India and Ors.) .

¶49

In view of the various medical examinations and the consistent findings, the subject experts have indicated the Cobb’s angle in relation to the Petitioner’s scoliosis and deformity of the spine. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted, on instructions, that this aspect is undisputed and we have proceeded to deal with the claim of the Petitioner in the above backdrop.

¶50

The Scoliosis Deformity is admittedly noted in the

5 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

thoracic spine with convexity towards the left side. The uniform guidelines for the Medical Examination Test meant for recruitment in the various types of process, is also placed before us. On internal page 30 (running page 194 of the Petition Paper book), clause 11 deals with Spine and Sacroiliac Joints. For ready reference, we are reproducing clause 11 here under:

¶55

“XI. SPINE AND SACROILIAC JOINTS:

¶56

a. Presence or history of ankylosing spondylitis or other inflammatory spondylopathiesis disqualifying.

¶57

b. Presence or history of any condition, including, but not limited to the spine or sacroiliac joints, with or without objective signs that:

¶58

(i) Prevents the individual from successfully following a physically active vocation or that is associated with local or referred pain to the extremities, muscular spasm, postural deformities, or limitation of motion is disqualifying.

¶59

(ii) Requires external support is disqualifying.

¶60

(iii) Requires limitation of physical activity or frequent treatment.

¶61

c. Presence of deviation or curvature of spine from normal alignment, structure, or function is disqualifying.

¶62

Scoliosis – Look for following signs a) One shoulder is higher than the other. b) One shoulder blade sticks out more than the other c) One side of the rib cage appears higher than the

6 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

other

d) One hip appears higher or more prominent than the other

¶68

e) The waist appears unever f) The body tilts to one side g) One leg may appear shorter than the other

¶69

one of the most common tests for detecting scoliosis is called the Adam’s Forward Bend Test, in which the individual bends from the waist as if touching the toes.

¶70

d. History of congenital fusion, involving more than two vertebral bodies is disqualifying.

¶71

e. Any surgical fusion of spinal vertebrae is disqualifying.

¶72

f. presence or history of fractures or dislocation of the vertebrae is disqualifying.

¶73

g. Presence of herniated nucleus pulposus or history of surgery to correct this condition is disqualifying.

¶74

h. Presence or history of spina bifida, if there is more than one vertebra level involved or withdimpling of the overlying skin, is disqualifying.

¶75

i. History of surgical repair of spina bifida is disqualifying.

¶76

j. Presence or history of spondylolysis (congenital or acquired) and spondylolisthesis (congenital or acquired) are disqualifying”.

7 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

We also find that, the examination rules have also indicated by a sketch expression as to how does a Sacroiliac Spine and a Normal Spine look like, on internal page 31 of the Rules. On the same page, all applications of Adam’s Forward Bend Test, in which an individual bends forward from the waist as if touching the toes, and the angular spine is also visualized in the figures. Based on such rules, the Respondents have concluded that the Petitioner is unfit for selection in any of the said services, considering the nature of the duties and the extent of physical strain and exertion which is expected only from a person who is physically declared fit under the Medical Examination. The nature of duties actually test the body to the limit.

¶81

In Dr. Vani Vishwanathan (supra), the case of the Petitioner was considered by the Delhi High Court. She was a candidate for recruitment in the Army Dental Corps, for the recruitment process initiated in the year 2019. She was suffering from Scoliosis and the Medical Board, Appeal Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board concluded that the Petitioner suffers from the disease which is determined in the medical reports. It was the contention of the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court

8 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

that the permissible level of such bend or deformity is upto 10 degrees.

¶86

While dealing with the case of Dr. Vani Vishwanathan (supra), the Delhi High Court has recorded in paragraph 6 as regards there being no possibility of malafides being attributed to the doctors of the forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work. It was also recorded that the opinion of private or government doctors, to the contrary, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the forces.

¶87

The above stated conclusion was drawn by relying upon Priti Yadav vs. Union of India 2020, SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine 808: and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 , SCC OnLine Del 924.

9 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

We, therefore, do not find that the reliance placed by

¶92

the Petitioner on the judgment of Dr. Vani Vishwanathan (supra), could be of any assistance to the Petitioner.

¶93

The learned Advocate has strenuously canvassed that though the Delhi High Court has dismissed the Petition of Dr. Vani Vishwanathan , paragraph 9 indicates as regards when a candidate’s claim can be rejected. He prays that paragraph 9 of the said judgment be considered by this Court. Paragraph 9 reads as under:

¶94

“9. Be that as it may, we have also examined the “Manual on Medical Examination and Medical Standards for Various Entries into Army, TRG Academies and MIL Schools” applicable to all types of entries into army irrespective of age and gender and find the same, (A) in Section 1 titled “General Considerations and Principles of Medical Examinations” to be providing (i) all armed forces personnel regardless of occupational specialty should have a basic level of general physical and medical fitness, when inducted into the service; (ii) the primary responsibility of armed forces is to defend territorial integrity of the nation and to also assist civil authorities in case of disasters/calamities; (iii) armed forces personnel undergo rigorous physical and mental training to stand mental and physical stresses of service conditions to perform their military duties in any terrain, climate, season including in remote areas, in austere conditions; to carry out such tasks, armed forces require candidates with robust physical and medical health; (iv) primary medical examination is

10 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

carried out to select only those candidates who can withstand rigorous mental and physical stresses of military service, in all types of terrains, climatic and geographical conditions and to preclude acceptance of those who are likely to break down on exposure to various stresses; (v) it must be borne in mind that a candidate once selected as medically fit, if found unfit at a later stage due to disability which could have been discovered during initial medical examination, causes considerable embarrassment and avoidable financial burden to State; (vi) in case of any doubt about any disease/disability/injury/genetic disorder etc. noticed during enrollment/commissioning, the benefit of doubt will be given to the State; (vii) the disabilities described in the Manual are not exhaustive due to development of scientific knowledge and due to introduction of new trades/categories of entries into armed forces; (viii) to be deemed medically fit to perform military duties, a candidate inter alia should be, free of medical conditions or physical defects that would entail excessive absence from duty for treatment and hospitalization and capable of performing high demanding training and duty and free of any disability, and adaptable to military environment without the necessity of geographical area limitations; (B) in Section 2 titled Anthropometric Standards to be inter alia providing (i) that the medical examination should cover body built and posture; (ii) candidates with abnormal curvature of spine should be rejected; (iii) under heading “Standards for Spine” that cobb’s angle more than 10 degrees for scoliosis or any other abnormality of spine is not acceptable; (C) in Section 5 titled “Detailed Methodology of Examination” to be inter alia providing (i) that defects in formation/segmentation/structure of spine are usually congenital and not usually picked up on routine clinical examination; (ii) scoliosis is a condition in which a person’s spine is curved from side to side; although it is a complex three dimensional deformity with the spine of an individual with scoliosis looking more like an ‘S’ or a ‘C’ than a straight line; (iii) describing the manner of

11 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

examination inter alia as, making a candidate bend forward, with excessive prominence of the rib cage on either side being strongly suggestive of scoliosis of the spine; (iv) a candidate with cobb’s angle of more than 10 degrees to be declared unfit; (v) the cobb’s method to measure scoliosis as the angle of deviation of the perpendicular lines from a straight line; and, (vi) scoliosis is unfit if deformity persists on full flexion of spine with restriction of range of movements or due to organic defect causing structural deformity.”

¶103

We find that Paragraph 9 of the Delhi High Court judgment pertains to the “Manual on Medical Examination and Medical Standards for Various Entries into the Army, TRG Academies, and MIL Schools,” which is applicable to all types of entries into the Army, irrespective of age and gender. So also, it was also the contention of the Petitioner, Dr. Vani Vishwanathan, that a spinal deformity, medically known as the Cobb angle, is tolerable up to 10 degrees for scoliosis or any other spinal abnormality.

¶104

However, we do not find that the case of the said Petitioner was accepted by the Delhi High Court notwithstanding the fact that unlike the present Petitioner, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the case of Dr. Vani Vishwanathan who was seeking recruitment in the Army Dental Corps. Moreover, the Respondent – Union of India has specifically relied upon the provisions set out in

12 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

Clause 11(c) of the uniform guidelines referred to above, which bar the Petitioner for the duties to be performed in any of the forces for which the Petitioner has applied for his recruitment. Clause 11 (c) clearly indicates that the presence of deviation or curvature of spine from normal alignment, structure, or function is a disqualifying factor.

¶109

We have also perused the illustrative figures found on internal page 31 of the guidelines. The Petitioner’s case is not different. Had the guidelines mentioned that the deformity was tolerable upto 5 degrees or 10 degrees, we would have had no difficulty in accepting the arguments/submissions of the Petitioner.

¶110

The fact remains that the Court is not expected to have expertise in such fields and we cannot import our impressions while dealing with Extensive Medical Examinations and the Rules applicable to the armed forces for recruiting men, supposed to be deployed directly in action and on the combat field.

¶111

As is recorded in paragraph 6 in Dr. Vani

¶112

Vishwanathan (supra), we would not be sitting over the reports of

13 of 14

Rohit Ghuge - PA

9.as.wp.381.2026.odt

Medical Experts and if we do so, it would only mean showing misplaced sympathy and especially in the absence of any such rule which would indicate that the 5 degrees deformity was tolerable for the forces in which the Petitioner seeks employment. In fact, the Delhi High Court disagreed with the view of the Petitioner on the ground that even a Dental Surgeon is required to remain bent while attending Patients and the position is likely to be aggravated at the place where the Petitioner, if recruited, may be required to serve as a dental surgeon.

¶117

In view of the above, this Petition is dismissed . Rule is discharged.

¶118

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶119

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶120

14 of 14

¶121

Rohit Ghuge - PA

Sandeep Kumar v. the Union of India Thro. Its Secretary Ministry of Mome Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. the Union of India Thro. Its Secretary Ministry of Mome Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tisai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Ors.

Milind Suryakant Dolas vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Mohsin Farooq Pathan and Anr. vs the State of Maharshtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Ors.

Rukmini Jagannath Satranje vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Rajendra Narayandas Joshi vs the Municipal Commissioner Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bhairavnath Gramvikas Pratishthan vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.