Mangesh Patange vs The Union Of India & Ors.

(PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

These matters were heard extensively yesterday and today. Since at around 6:15 p.m. we were short of time, we listed these matters today for dictation of orders.

After extensive hearing in these matters, the first two Petitions filed by Mangesh s/o Chandrakant Patange and Vishnu Madhavrao Dhone, appear to be an ‘open and shut’ case. There is no dispute that in both these cases, the Petitioners have birthmarks. Mangesh has birthmarks on his chest and Vishnu has birthmarks on his stomach area.

In the case of Mangesh, the medical examination conducted by the Competent Authority on 18^th November, 2025 indicated a birthmark on the left clavicle. Mangesh was declared unfit. Thereafter, he was referred for a detailed medical examination. The same impression was drawn and the conclusion was unfit because of the said birthmark.

Thereafter, the Authorities referred the case of Mangesh, to Dr.Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Nashik to be examined by a specialized Dermatologist. He has drawn his conclusions by recording that there is a dark elevated lesion below the left clavicle. There is no increase in the size, no pain, no burning fumation, no asymmetric border and no discharge. It is also recorded that there are No co-morbidities. No Medication is prescribed. It is only a hyper-pigmented (black) plaque. No malignant signs, Non-cancerous and Non-growing. Yet, the Authorities have declared the Petitioner unfit.

It is in the light of the above and especially the detailed examination by the specialized Dermatologist of an Institution to which the Petitioner was referred to, that we are convinced that such a mole which is by birth and harmless in view of the medical reports referred to by us herein above, the case of the Petitioner, Mangesh has to be cleared as being fit for being considered for further participation in the selection process. With such conclusions, Writ Petition No.16436 of 2025 is partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

In the second Petition filed by Vishnu Madhavrao Dhone, the facts are more or less, similar. The first medical examination indicated ‘Big Nevus Near Left Nipple’, on the chest. Vishnu was declared unfit. His case was referred for detailed medical examination. The Medical Officer is a Medical Member-4 of the Board at Nashik, which is attached to the Respondents. Again the same conclusion was drawn on 18^th November, 2025.

As like in the case of Mangesh, Vishnu also opted for a review medical examination, which was permissible. On referral to the Dr.Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Nashik the Petitioner, Vishnu was examined on 20^th November, 2025. The diagnosis by the specialized Dermatologist was that Vishnu has a dark flat patch on the left chest. It is by birth. The local examination indicated no increase in size, no itching/no pain/no burning sensation. The provisional diagnosis indicated no history of trauma or friction. It was found to be a hyper pigmented macules over the left chest. The dermoscopy indicated no malignancy, a benign condition, no irritation and no interference with daily activity. Yet, the Respondents have declared Vishnu as unfit.

In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 16437 of 2025 is partly allowed. The Petitioner is declared to be eligible for further participation in the selection process. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

In the third Petition preferred by Vaibhav Ramchandra Panjarkar, the medical examination report dated 20^th November, 2025 indicated a hyper-pigment scar on glans penis. Since the Petitioner was entitled for a review medical examination by consent, he opted for such medical examination. The review medical examination indicated the same diagnosis and he was declared unfit on account of the single hyper pigmented macule over glans penis. The Dermatologist found erythema over glans penis, fungal infection with post inflammatory hyper-pigmentation, single hyper pigmented macule over glans with impression of candidial balanitis with post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, which is extensive may interfere with during co-morbidities. Hence, he was declared unfit.

The Petitioner approached the Government Medical College and Hospital at Hingoli on 3^rd December, 2025. The diagnosis indicated that the Petitioner had a history of candidial balanitis. Due to passage of time, no active skin lesion was noticed. No inflammatory hyper-pigmentation was seen. It, therefore, appears that the Petitioner, Vaibhav must have had a localized infection for which he had taken treatment, and the infection seems to have been cured.

The learned Advocate representing the Respondents tenders a copy of the communication received by him dated 17^th December, 2025 addressed by Commandant, CISF, ISP, Nashik to the DIG/Director (Medical) CISF HQRs New Delhi. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. It is conveyed that the Petitioner can present himself for medical examination/review medical examination on 22^nd or 23^rd December, 2025. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that he would present himself on 22^nd December, 2025.

We direct that since the review medical examination had earlier declared the Petitioner Vaibhav unfit, it would be appropriate for the review medical examination to refer the case of the Petitioner to a specialized Dermatologist as like in the earlier two cases, for proper medical examination. Vaibhav would carry all medical papers along with him, if he has taken private treatment from a private medical practitioner or the Government Medical College and Hospital at Hingoli, and show all these papers to the specialized Dermatologist. If in the said medical examination, it is noticed that the Petitioner is cured of the infection, he can be declared fit for participation in the further selection process.

With the above observations and directions, Writ Petition No.16632 of 2025 is partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

Before parting with these three cases, we find that the Respondents have been most unfair with the first two cases of Mangesh and Vishnu. We are at pains to record that the medical experts with the Respondent/Establishment are enable to distinguish between a birthmark and a disease. Despite the birthmarks of Mangesh and Vishnu, both have been repeatedly declared unfit, thereby compelling them to approach this Court and exhaust their time, energy and money.

We would have been justified in imposing costs to be paid to these two Petitioners. However, the learned Advocate representing the Respondents submits that hereinafter such a case would not come to this Court and if such a case again comes up to this Court, then heavy costs be imposed. Having said that, we are refraining from imposing costs.