The Calcutta High Court has ruled that palmar hyperhidrosis, a condition characterised by excessive sweating of the palms, does not constitute a valid ground to declare a candidate medically unfit for appointment as a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces. The court observed that the recruitment authorities had failed to identify any specific provision within the applicable medical guidelines that would disqualify a candidate on account of this condition. The case arose from a petition challenging the declaration of medical unfitness issued to an aspirant during the recruitment process for the CAPFs, where the candidate was rejected on the basis that his excessive sweating of the palms, or palmar hyperhidrosis, rendered him unfit for service.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya noted that Clause 6(16) of the Recruitment Medical Examination Guidelines of 2015, which relates to mental or nervous instability, had been wrongly invoked by the recruitment authorities in declaring the petitioner unfit. The court pointed out that there was no conclusive medical evidence before it to establish any causal link between the petitioner’s palmar hyperhidrosis and mental or nervous instability, and therefore the application of that provision to the petitioner’s case was inappropriate. The authorities’ decision to classify the condition as a disqualifying factor was found by the court to be based on surmise and conjecture rather than grounded in any specific medical guideline or expert determination.
The High Court stressed that the Recruitment Medical Examination Guidelines, 2015, set out the criteria according to which candidates are to be assessed for fitness for appointment in the CAPFs, and any deviation from those criteria must be supported by clear evidence. In the present case, the court found that the authorities had not produced any guideline provision that expressly disqualified a candidate on the basis of palmar hyperhidrosis. The absence of such a provision meant that the candidate should not have been declared medically unfit on account of excessive sweating of the palms alone.
After considering the submissions and the applicable guidelines, the court concluded that the decision to declare the petitioner unfit was not justifiable. The High Court observed that in the absence of a clear disqualification in the medical guidelines, the condition of palmar hyperhidrosis could not be treated as a ground for exclusion from appointment. On this basis, the court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to treat the petitioner as medically fit for appointment as a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces, subject to his fulfilling all other eligibility conditions required for the post.
The court’s order further specified a timeline within which the recruitment authorities were to take the necessary steps to proceed with the petitioner’s appointment. They were directed to complete the procedural formalities and facilitate the petitioner’s appointment within two months. This direction was intended to ensure that the candidate’s selection and progression through the recruitment process would not be unduly delayed on account of the earlier erroneous declaration of medical unfitness.
The judgment underscores the need for recruitment authorities to strictly adhere to the established medical guidelines when evaluating the fitness of candidates for appointment in law enforcement and armed forces posts. It highlights that conditions not expressly listed as disqualifying in the relevant medical guidelines should not be used as a basis to declare candidates unfit, absent clear medical evidence demonstrating a direct impact on the candidate’s ability to perform the duties required of the position.
In the wider context of CAPF recruitment, this ruling clarifies that subjective or unsupported interpretations of medical conditions cannot form the sole basis for rejecting a candidate’s candidature. The High Court’s directive reinforces the principle that recruitment decisions, particularly those involving medical fitness, must be anchored in the objective criteria set out in the applicable guidelines and supported by evidence.
The case captioned MD. Ashik Mondal v. Union of India & Others reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring that aspirants for government service are not unfairly deprived of their opportunities due to conditions that are neither penalised by the governing medical standards nor detrimental to their ability to service the role for which they are being considered. The Calcutta High Court’s decision thus provides a precedent in favour of candidates facing similar issues, emphasising that excessive sweating of the palms alone does not justify a finding of medical unfitness for appointment to the CAPFs.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.