Tripura High Court
Surajit Das vs The Union Of India on 8 August, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.714 of 2024
Surajit Das,
S/o. Subal Das,
R/o. Simna Colony Habitation,
Simna Gram Panchayat, Mohanpur, West Tripura District, Tripura,
PIN- 799212.
........Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The Union of India,
To be represented by the Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India, Room No:113, North Block, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. The Secretary, Department Home,
Govt. of India, Room No:101, North Block, New Delhi, PIN -
110001.
3. The Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance & Pensions, Govt. of India, Block No:12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
4. The Under Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance & Pensions, Govt. of India, Block No:12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
5. The Director General of Assam Rifles (DG AR),
Pomlakrai, Meghalaya, PIN - 793010.
6. Review Medical Examination Board,
For the Examination of Constable (GD) Exam, 2024, to be
represented by the CMO(SG) RME Board of CT(GD) Examination,
2024, BSF Salbagan, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN - 799012.
7. The Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force,
CGO Complex, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi, Delhi, PIN - 110003.
........ Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy SGI.
Date of hearing and delivery : 8th August, 2025.
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bidyut Majumder,
learned Deputy SGI appearing for the respondents.
2. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submits that the
petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in the Armed
Forces in respect of an advertisement dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure-1 of
the writ petition), and he duly passed the Computer based Examination
and Physical Standard Test in the selection process but was declared
unfit in medical examination conducted by Review Medical Board, vide
report dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-R/2 to the writ petition) on the
ground of "Left Ear Tympanic Membrane Central Perforation". Mr. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel also relies on another report of the
Medical Officer, ENT Specialist of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Govt. of Tripura
dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) whereby the
petitioner was declared as fit to undergo para-military training having no
perforation in his left ear. In such circumstances, referring to the
guidelines for Review Medical Examination (Annexure 9 to the writ
petition) issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, dated
31.05.2021, learned senior counsel submits that necessary directions
may be issued for constituting a Medical Board at GBP Hospital for
examination of the petitioner, with further direction to the respondents
to act in accordance with the report of the said Medical Board.
3. Mr. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI referring to the counter
affidavit submitted by respondent no.6, argues that after the petitioner
was declared unfit in his Detailed Medical examination (DME) by the
concerned medical officer, he was further examined by the Review
Medical board, who sent the petitioner to GBP Hospital for his
examination, following the above said guidelines issued for Review
Medical Examination (RME) in CRPF and Assam Rifles. The Medical
examination report from GBP Hospital was supposed to be received by
Review Medical Board on 17.10.2024, but as same was not received on
that day during the working hours, the petitioner was again referred by
said Review Medical Board to GBP Hospital for examination on
18.10.2024 for such opinion. Meanwhile, in the evening of 17.10.2024,
the Review Medical Board received the report from GBP Hospital issued
by a Specialist Doctor, wherein the Review Medical Board declared the
petitioner to be unfit on the ground of "Left Ear Tympanic Membrane
Central Perforation". Thereafter, the said Review Medical Board also
received another report of examination done by another medical officer
of said GBP Hospital (part of Annexure 9), on the basis of their second
requisition, wherein the Specialist Medical Officer opined that the ear of
the petitioner was normal. Learned Deputy SGI submits that the Review
Medical board accepted the former report and declared the petitioner
unfit.
4. Learned Deputy SGI also argues that, as per the guidelines,
the first report of the Specialist Doctor of GBP Hospital was based on
one audiometric test, and therefore, as per the said guidelines issued for
Review Medical Examination, there was no further scope of re-
examination of the petitioner by the Specialist Doctor of Govt. Hospital.
Learned Deputy SGI urges for dismissal of the writ petition. He also
relies on the decision of Sumit vs. Union of India and others,
Letters Patent Appeal No.871 of 2022 (O&M), decided on
24.04.2023 by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court,
wherein the petitioner was an aspirant for appointment in Indian Air
Force, which required a very high degree of medical fitness and in his
medical examination, he was declared unfit on account of „CVS REVIEW‟
(Cardiovascular Status) and „Hyper Hydrosis‟. Said petitioner was also
examined by the Appellate Medical Board, and the Appellate Medical
Board also found him unfit on the same ground. Finally, the matter was
challenged before the High Court and on consideration of the facts of
said case, High Court found no illegality or infirmity to interfere in the
order of learned Single Judge who rejected the said writ petition on the
ground that the said appellant was examined twice - firstly by the
Recruitment Medical Board and thereafter by the Appeal Medical Board
and the said Appeal Medical Board also obtained opinion from the
Command Hospital, Eastern Command, Kolkata and thereafter took the
decision in this matter, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with
the same. Learned Deputy SGI also relies on another decision of
Calcutta High Court, rendered in Union of India and Ors. vs. Yogesh
Chhetri and Anr., MAT 2154 of 2023. In said case the private
respondent was declared medically unfit in similar type of recruitment
process, by both the initial medical board and also by Review Medical
Board and in that contexts the High Court observed that the rules
governing such selection process did not permit formation of a fresh
medical board. It allows an aspirant to be medically examined by the
initial medical board and if the aspirant is dissatisfied with the finding of
the initial medical board, to approach the review medical board for
reconsideration of the decision. But the rules governing the selection
process does not permit formation of a fresh medical board. Learned
Deputy SGI submits that said order was challenged before the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in case of Union of India and Others vs. Yogesh Chhetri
and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1469, Hon‟ble Supreme Court
declined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
5. The Court has given due consideration to the submissions of
learned counsel of both sides. The factual backgrounds of the cases
referred by learned Deputy SGI are not similar to the present case in
hand. In those cases, both the initial medical board and review medical
board found the concerned candidate physically unfit whereas, in our
case in hand, when the Review Medical Board itself referred the
petitioner twice for examination by a Specialist Doctor at GBP Hospital,
Agartala, two contradictory reports were submitted by two such
Specialist Medical Officers. As it appears, the first report of the medical
officer of GBP Hospital, did not directly note down any specific opinion
that the petitioner was suffering from Left Ear Tympanic Membrane
Central Perforation, rather medical officer mentioned certain indications
in the report dated 17.10.2024 regarding the result of such
examinations based on which the Review Medical Board came to the
conclusion that the petitioner was suffering from Left Ear Tympanic
Membrane Central Perforation. The second report dated 18.10.2024,
issued by another medical officer of said Hospital just on the following
shows that, upon examination of ear of the petitioner, he found the
same to be normal. As indicated above, both the reports are
contradictory to each other issued just within a gap of one day by the
medical officers of the same hospital. The Review Medical Board opted
to rely on the report dated 17.10.2024. According to them, said report
was supported by audiometric examination. The petitioner, in the writ
petition, has also placed another report of another Specialist Medical
Officer of said GBP Hospital, who also examined the petitioner on
23.10.2024 in the said hospital and on examination he found the
petitioner fit to undergo para-military training with comment that there
was no Perforation in his left ear. His report is also supported by
audiometric test. All the reports have been issued from a single hospital
with contradictory observations. Enclosing the said report dated
23.10.2024, one communication was made by the petitioner on
28.10.2024 to DIG, BSF, Medical (Superintendent), (Annexure 10 to the
writ petition) but, according to Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
no response was received in respect of said report.
6. As discussed above, the Review Medical Board itself received
2(two) contradictory reports of 2(two) specialist medical officers of the
same hospital just within a gap of one day and report of another
specialist medical officer of the said hospital who examined the
petitioner on 23.10.2024 also supported the second report issued on
18.10.2024. Therefore, a serious cloud has cast upon the report dated
17.10.2024 which was relied on by the Review Medical Board.
7. Considering all these aspects, and taking note of these
contradictory medical reports, the petitioner is directed to submit a
representation, along with the said medical report dated 23.10.2024
along with the related audiometric test report to the respondent No.6
within two weeks from today. Thereafter, respondent No.6 will review
the matter afresh and come to a reasoned decision in this regard. The
respondent No.6 will, however, be at liberty to go for examination of the
petitioner by any medical board to be constituted by the Medical
Superintendent of GBP Hospital, Agartala in this regard. Final decision
should be taken by the respondent No.6 on the representation of the
petitioner within two months of receipt of the same.
8. Earlier vide order dated 07.01.2025 the respondents were
directed that they shall not fill up one post of Constable (GD) till
disposal of this writ petition. Said direction shall remain in force till final
decision is taken by the review medical board in pursuance of this order.
With such observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
SATABD by SATABDI
DUTTA
JUDGE
I DUTTA Date: 2025.08.12
17:51:49 +05'30'
Dinashree
