Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010004692018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/286/2018 MIDU BASUMATARY S/O. SHRI BHIM BASUMATARY, RESIDENT OF UJANPARA,, POST OFFICE- RAINADABRI, POLICE STATION- KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-110011 2:THE COMMANDING OFFICER NO. 1 TRAINING BATTALION (AT) ASC CENTRE (NORTH) BANGLORE 3:DIRECTOR RECRUITING ARMY RECRUITING OFFICE NARENGI GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MS. S BASUMATARY,MR S BAISHYA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. S K MEDHI Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Union of India, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the discharge certificate 27-01-2016 issued to the petitioner, invalidating him from training on the basis of the report of the Medical Board w.e.f. 27-01- 2016. 3. The petitioner, herein, in terms of his selection was provisionally offered enrolment into the category of SOL GD in the Army Service Corps Centre (ASC Centre) (North), Bangalore Corps/Regiment and was advised to report before the Army Recruiting Office, Narengi, on 15-06-2015 for final documentation, physical and medical examination before onward dispatch to the Regimental centre at Bangalore. The petitioner, accordingly reported to the Army Recruiting Office at Narengi on 15-06-2015 and the petitioner, therein, was found to be physically and mentally fit. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to the Regimental centre at Bangalore for undergoing his training. The petitioner while undergoing the training at the said centre in Bangalore suffered from illness and accordingly was required to be admitted in the hospital. While the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, the doctor treating the petitioner to understand the cause of the fever suffered by the petitioner, a blood test was carried out. The report thereof, revealed that the petitioner, herein, was suffering from Thalassemia of HBF variant. The said fact coming to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, also Page No.# 3/5 noticing the recommendation made by the Hematologist of the composite hospital, the matter was placed before the Medical Board. The Medical Board, accordingly confirmed the opinion of the specialist and the petitioner was issued a provisional discharge certificate on 27-01-2016, invalidating him on medical grounds w.e.f. the same date i.e. 27-01-2016. The petitioner has assailed the said provisional discharge certificate. The respondents have filed an affidavit in the matter and therein, have brought on record the blood reports of the petitioner as well as the opinion of the Specialist and also of the Medical Board, as constituted in the matter. The disclosures made in from the documents enclosed to the affidavit as well as the contentions raised in the said affidavit filed by the respondents have not been disputed by the petitioner, herein, by filing a rejoinder thereto by bringing on record cogent materials. 4. Accordingly, the conclusions reached by the doctors of the army including the conclusion reached by the Medical Board not being disputed, this Court would have to accept the same and accordingly the petitioner is held to be suffering from Thalassemia of HBF variant and the said disease admittedly would not permit the petitioner to continue with the training, inasmuch as, it would be life-threatening for him, in the event, the petitioner is required to undergo the rigorous training that is prescribed for an army personnel before his enrolment into the force. Accordingly, the discharge of the petitioner form the training cannot be held to be erroneous. 5. Mr. T. Deuri, at this stage had made a submission that the subsequent conclusions reached by the doctors of the army examining the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, the petitioner was thoroughly examined at the 151 Base Hospital at Narengi, and he was found to be medically fit. The said issue need not detain this Court further, inasmuch as, it has been clarified by the respondents in their affidavit that Page No.# 4/5 Thalassemia of HBF variant as suffered by the petitioner is not permissible to be detected on a physical examination of the person suffering from the same and for the purpose, a blood test examination is required to be carried out. It was further clarified that there was no examination of the blood of the petitioner at Narengi and accordingly the said disease could not be detected. However, when the petitioner had fallen sick, the army doctors at Bangalore had required for pathological examination of the blood of the petitioner to understand the root cause for the recurring fever suffered by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is under such circumstances that the fact the petitioner was afflicted from the said disease came to the forefront. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the present proceeding has also projected that the petitioner having been detected with the said disease during his training, the respondent authorities in lieu of invalidating him out of service, ought to have accommodated the petitioner in any other vocation in the force itself which would not require a strenuous activity. In support of his such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities, (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995. 7. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, the Army is exempted from the provisions of the Act of 1995 and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for an alternative appointment would also not mandate an acceptance. 8. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition isheld to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant