Shikhar Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

We do not find that any case for review is made out in the present review petition, for the following reasons.

Firstly, Mr. Bhargava has sought to reargue, entirely, the submission that the case of a person who has only one testis remaining owing to an Orchidectomy which took place in the past, during which one of the two testes were removed, is not covered by the applicable medical guidelines.

We have dealt with this aspect in our judgment. Ordinarily, such an argument would not be allowed to be re-agitated in a review petition. Nonetheless, in view of Mr. Bhargava’s submissions, we have re-examined the rules. The Rule, which we have quoted in para 10 of our judgment, clearly states at the very outset thus:

Clearly, therefore, the existence of both the testis is a pre-requisite for entry into the CAPF. A person who has only one testis is ipso facto excluded from consideration.

The second submission advanced by Mr. Bhargava is predicated on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divyanshu Singh v Union of India^{11.Order dated 29 May 2025 in SLP (C) 13758/2025}. That was a case of a person who was suffering from glaucoma, whose glaucoma was cured. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court said that the disqualifying ailment no longer survived.

This case cannot even be remotely likened to the present case. In the present case, the petitioner, even at the time of examination had only one testis. That was not a curable condition in the first place. As such, the judgment in Divyanshu Singh does not apply.

We, therefore, find no cause to review our decision. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.