[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 28 January, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010278412025
2026:GAU-AS:960
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7398/2025
ALIMUL HUSSAIN
S/O AMIN HUSSAIN, VILL- PARCHIM DURAHATI (PRATAPKHATA PAT II) P.O
PRATAPKHATA, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, PIN 783337
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK-12
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
RUKMINI NAGAR
P.O.- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK 7 LEVEL 4 SECTOR R.K.
PURAM
NEW DELHI- 110066
5:PRESIDING OFFICER-RME BOARD
RECRUITMENT OF CT/GD-2025
GC CRPF
Page No.# 2/6
GUWAHATI- 78102
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC
Date on which judgment was reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. N. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC, who appears on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that apart from the other
respondents, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Presiding
Officer, RECTT. Board, PO, Executive Board DV/DME/RME-CT (GD)
Exam-25, Center CAPFs CH BSF Patgaon as a party to the instant
proceedings.
Page No.# 3/6
3. Taking into account the said, this Court impleads the RECTT.
Board, PO, Executive Board DV/DME/RME-CT (GD) Exam-25, Center
CAPFs CH BSF Patgaon as respondent No. 6 in the instant
proceedings.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is
directed to file an amended Memo of Parties before the Registry of
this Court during the course of the day and on the basis of the said
Memo of Parties and the judgment passed herein, the Registry is
directed to make necessary changes in the Cause Title as well as
update the same in the CIS.
5. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion
rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board-II of the Centre-
CAPFs, CH BSF, Patgaon wherein it was opined that the petitioner is
unfit.
6. The materials on record show that in pursuance to a notice
issued for recruitment of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police
Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in
Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025, the petitioner
participated in the said recruitment process. While carrying out the
medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was not fit for
appointment as a Constable (GD). The petitioner thereupon requested
for a review. The Review Medical Board by the opinion rendered on
Page No.# 4/6
21.11.2025 concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the ground that
the petitioner had burn injury mark on right foot with abnormal great
toe nail.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner
thereupon carried out certain examination at the Kokrajhar Medical
College and Hospital, Kokrajhar and it is the case of the petitioner that
the Registrar, Department of Orthopaedics of the said Medical College
and Hospital in the case of the petitioner opined that the petitioner
had no recent harm; not change over (R) great toe; tenderness
absent; other skin charges absent; (R) Ankle was within normal limit;
(R) Toe was also within normal limit and the petitioner was fit for daily
activity. The said opinion was given on 27.11.2025. It is under such
circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
8. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record.
9. This Court also has taken note of that the petitioner upon
obtaining the medical opinion from the Kokrajhar Medical College and
Hospital, Kokrajhar had not approached the Respondent Authorities by
submitting a representation and had directly approached this Court.
10. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal and, more
Page No.# 5/6
particularly, in respect to varied medical opinions rendered by the
Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities as well as the
Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar.
11. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for entertaining the
writ petition.
12. Be that as it may, the petitioner are always at liberty to submit a
representation along with the necessary documents before the Review
Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities and the Review Medical
Board on the basis thereof can very well look into the same.
13. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:
(i). In the present facts and circumstances of the case as
observed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant
writ petition.
(ii). The non-entertaining of the writ petition shall not preclude
the petitioner to submit a representation before the Review
Medical Board of the respondents seeking a re-consideration on
the basis of the medical opinions available with the petitioner as
discussed above.
(iii). In the circumstance, any representation is submitted within
Page No.# 6/6
10 (ten) days from today, the Review Medical Board of the
respondents shall look into the same and do the needful in
accordance with their guidelines within a period of 60 (sixty)
days from the date of receipt of the representation.
JUDGE
Date: 2026.01.29 18:30:23 +05'30'
