After being selected for a constable position in the Central Armed Police Forces, a candidate was denied appointment on the grounds that he had an extra finger on his left hand. Challenging this, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has now quashed the medical rejection report and ordered a fresh medical examination.
The petitioner, K. Balamurugan from Madurai district, stated in his plea that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) had issued a notification in 2023 for recruitment of constables in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and other Central Armed Police Forces. He applied, cleared all stages of the selection process, and attended the medical examination on 07.10.2024.
However, during the medical test, it was noted that he had an “extra finger” on his left hand, and he was declared medically unfit. He subsequently filed a petition challenging this decision.
Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioner referred to revised medical guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2021, which state that minor physical anomalies that do not affect job performance should not be grounds for disqualification from government employment.
He argued that he did not have an extra finger, but rather a small rudimentary finger (a vestigial digit), which would not affect his ability to perform police duties.
Government’s Stand:
The central government argued that the presence of an extra finger could hinder weapon handling, posing a safety risk in armed forces. Therefore, the medical board had rightly declared him unfit based on existing guidelines.
High Court’s Verdict:
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, who heard the case, stated:
“Disability is an act of God and cannot be seen as a human fault.
The law mandates equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in government service.
Rejection based on physical conditions that do not impact job performance is inhumane.”
Since the petitioner’s physical condition does not impair his functional ability, the judge quashed the medical rejection report and directed that the petitioner be subjected to a fresh medical examination.
This verdict reinforces the principle that minor disabilities should not be a barrier to government employment, provided they do not interfere with job responsibilities.
