Can CISF disqualify candidates for birthmarks?

A court has ruled that the CISF cannot disqualify candidates solely based on birthmarks, deeming it an incorrect assessment of medical fitness.

What medical conditions led to disqualification in the CISF recruitment?

Candidates were disqualified for conditions such as birthmarks and benign fungal infections on their body.

Did the court order reconsiderations for disqualified CISF applicants?

Yes, the court ordered that candidates disqualified for birthmarks and fungal infections should be reconsidered for selection if otherwise meritorious.

Home / Crime and Justice / Birthmarks vs. Disease: Court Slams CISF Recruitment Medicals

Birthmarks vs. Disease: Court Slams CISF Recruitment Medicals

18 Dec

•

Summary

Court ruled CISF wrongly disqualified candidates for birthmarks and fungal infection.
Judges questioned the recruitment process for rejecting meritorious applicants.
Medical disqualifications were overturned, allowing candidates to be reconsidered.

Birthmarks vs. Disease: Court Slams CISF Recruitment Medicals

A division bench of justices sharply rebuked the CISF for disqualifying candidates for constable positions based on what the court deemed minor or inconsequential medical conditions. The judiciary questioned the force's medical assessment protocols, particularly regarding the inability to distinguish between birthmarks and curable ailments like fungal infections. This intervention came after three aspirants from Hingoli were rejected during the selection process for Central Armed Police Forces and other agencies.

The court quashed the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination reports from November and December. The candidates, Mangesh Patange, Vishnu Dhone, and Vaibhav Panjarkar, had cleared the physical efficiency tests but were declared medically unfit. Medical specialists had opined that their conditions, including hyperpigmentation and a benign fungal infection, were not disqualifying.