Calcutta High Court orders re-test for CAPF candidate rejected over ‘winged scapula’

The bench noted that it is clear from the RME guidelines that a decision on rejection cannot be made only on clinical findings.

Petitioner challenges rejection

The petitioner had applied for the post of constable (GD) under the CAPF, SSF, rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) through the 2025 examination. He cleared the physical standard test and physical efficiency test and was shortlisted for recruitment.

During the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on November 27, 2025, he was declared medically unfit after being found to have a winged scapula. It is a condition where a person’s shoulder blade or scapula sticks out from the back instead of lying flat against the rib cage.

He challenged the finding before the RME Board, but it also declared him unfit on account of a left winged scapula in its December 8, 2025 report.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner moved the high court, arguing that the RME had failed to follow the prescribed medical examination guidelines, which required thorough investigation and, where applicable, corroboration through confirmatory tests or specialist opinions.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Sagnik Chatterjee, Ananya Neogi, Sayan Mukherjee and Anushka Ghosh submitted that in terms of the RME guidelines, Clause 6(c ) and (d) specify that the board has to examine the candidate who has been declared unfit thoroughly and the findings must be supported by proper investigation reports.

RME failed prescribed medical protocol: Order

The order said courts have limited scope to interfere in a judicial review, but violation of procedural rules laid down for administrative authorities falls directly within its domain. It said courts in judicial review do not ascertain whether an administrative act is substantively “right or wrong”; however, the procedure followed to execute the act can be scrutinised.

The court said that under Clauses 6(c), 6(d), and 8 of the RME Guidelines, the defect causing unfitness must be examined thoroughly and supported by proper investigation reports. It added that the RME declared the petitioner unfit due to a winged scapula (left) based purely on a bare clinical finding by its own board without any cogent reasoning. There were no confirmatory tests, investigation reports, or expert opinions on record as required by Clauses 6(d) and 8.

The judge thus set aside the RME’s December 2025 order declaring the petitioner medically unfit, and directed the RME to conduct a fresh medical examination in accordance with the prescribed guidelines within eight weeks.