Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010239872024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5987/2024 DWIP JYOTI SINGHA S/O NIBARAN SINGHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAONAGAON PO MULAGAON DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783380 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-03 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-6 4:THE DIRECTOR GENRAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT) EAST BLOCK 07 Page No.# 2/9 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01 R K PURAM NEW DELHI 06 5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT/GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2024 CRPF COMPOSITE HOSPITAL GUWAHATI 25 6:THE MEDICAL BOARD CT/GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2024 RECRUITMENT BOARD GROUP CENTRE CRPF GUWAHATI AMERIGOG ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 14.08 .2025 Heard Md. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 21.10.2024, whereby the petitioner was found to be unfit on account of “Systolic hypertension” and rejected for appointment for the post of a Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The petitioner is aggrieved that his rejection on the ground of suffering from “Systolic hypertension” is contradicted by report of doctor of a Civil Hospital which reflects that the petitioner is perfectly normal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines Page No.# 3/9 which are laid down in respect of medical examination in these cases have been flouted by the respondents. There is no corroboration of the clinical findings with the confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of Government Hospitals, Medical College etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to examine the petitioner by the Review Medical Board constituted and thereafter, give specific reports after due corroboration with the clinical tests that are required to be undertaken. The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavits. The learned CGC for the respondents submits that the guidelines for Review Medical Board relied upon to the petitioner has undergone amendments in the amended guidelines. The one of the ground for rejection is shown to be hypertension. The petitioner was duly examined by the Medical Authorities in which the Medical Doctor of the Composite Hospital, CRPF has returned a finding that the petitioner is unfit for being appointed in the Constable (GD) as he was found to be suffering from hypertension. This was followed by a Review Medical Board whereupon the petitioner was admitted to the composite hospital for three days and his blood pressure was duly monitored and his medical report reveals that the petitioner suffers from “Systolic hypertension”. The medical report indicates the blood pressure reading for the period of three days. There was proper ECG as well as required blood tests were conducted on the petitioner. On the basis of all these tests and reports the Review Medical Board had returned on an opinion that the petitioner was suffering from “Systolic hypertension” and therefore, he is not fit to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces. Page No.# 4/9 The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before the Court the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches, wherein the candidates were referred for Review Medical Board. The learned for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.6333/2024 vide order dated 25.03.2025. On the other hand the respondents have place an order of the Apex Court passed in SLP(C) Nos. 738-741/2022, where the SLP preferred by the Union although dismissed, it was observed that as a normal rule the decision taken by the Review Medical Board should be treated as final. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on the record have been carefully perused. The amended guidelines for the Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles are enclosed to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The Clause 7 and Clause 8 of the guideline laid down certain examples which are extracted below: “7. Following examples are cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board:- a) In any cardiac case like valvular defects, ECG/Echocardiogram must be carried out. b) In cases of suspected lesions of chest like Hillar lymphadenitis, calcifled sports, Koch’s infiltrations, any mass detected in X-Ray chest etc CT Chest should be carried out. c) Fore vascular defects like Varicose vein, vascular malformations etc, Colour Doppler should be carried out. d) To rule out any eye surgery like Page No.# 5/9 Lasik/LASEK/PRK/PK/Glaucoma/Squint/Pterygium Surgery etc. Investigations may be carried out accordingly, viz. Slit lamp examination/ophthalmoscopy/Corneal/Topography/OCT/HVF/Tonometry/VEP/ERG/ Synoptophore etc. should be carried out. e) Fore candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertensions/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate’s fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should be indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electrocardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc, tests should also be carried out. f) For any suspected case of CAD, MT test should be conducted. g) Any tremor in hands or other parts of body thyrotoxicosis should be ruled out and neurologist's opinion should be taken. h) For suspected Diabetes Mellitus cases GTT and Glycosylated Hb. test should be carried out. i) For Knock knee, bow leg, cubitus valgus and varus deformities, X-Ray plate with findings should be attached. j) For any type of deafness, audiometry should be carried out. k) For a case of dental points less than 14, OPG should be carried out. 8. These are a few examples to reiterate and bring home the point that in review medical examination candidates are subjected to require concerned investigations wherever and whenever applicable. Rejection merely on clinical findings is to be avoided. Any decision on rejection must be taken up with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation reports and if needed Page No.# 6/9 opinion of specialists/ super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt, approved private medical centers should be taken. When such confirmatory tests are required to be carried out routinely, time constraint should not be there and for not making review medical examination time bound, all concerned may be informed otherwise proper decision cannot be taken in such cases.” A perusal of the guidelines and the examples extracted above reflects that hypertensions/tachycardia is one of the ground for rejection of candidates. The medical report and the report of the Review Medical Board has returned a finding that the petitioner is suffered from “Systolic hypertension” and therefore his case was rejected. However, the guidelines referred to by the respondents reveal that in cases of hypertension the hospitalization report should indicate, whether rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement or whether it is due to any organic disease. Further, Clause 8 reflects that rejection merely on clinical findings is to be avoided. Any decision on rejection must be taken up with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation reports and if needed opinion of specialists/super specialists of Government Hospital/Medical Colleges/Government approved private medical centre should be taken. It is further provided where such confirmatory tests are required to be carried out routinely, time constraint should not be there and for not making review medical examination time bound, all concerned may be informed otherwise proper decision cannot be taken in such cases. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings available on record and also upon perusal of the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the rejection of any candidate in selection, more particularly for Page No.# 7/9 selection of combined examinations and appointment to CAPF are bound to cause heart burns to the candidates who are found to be rejected. More particularly those candidates who have otherwise successfully cleared written examination and physical evaluation test. In the facts of the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner cleared the earlier rounds of tests or screening procedure but was ultimately rejected on the ground of medical fitness. The petitioner found to be suffering from “Systolic hypertension” by the Medical Doctor of the Forces and the Review Medical Board of CRPF Composite Hospital. Although the relevant medical records has been placed before the Court for examination, which reveals that ECG and blood tests have been conducted in respect of the writ petitioner and he also admitted to the composite hospital for three days for monitoring the blood pressure and pursuant to which the Review Medical Board opined that the petitioner suffers from “Systolic hypertension”, this medical report ultimately does not indicate whether the rise in the blood pressure or the medical conditions stated to have been suffered by the petitioner namely “Systolic hypertension” is due to excitement or whether it is due to any organic disease. The probable cause for the medical condition of “Systolic hypertension” found to have been suffered by the petitioner does not indicate in the medical report, the probably causes and/or whether it relates to any particular physical ailment or disease suffered by the petitioner. These conclusions required to be reflected in the Medical Report which is a part of the Review Medical Board, which have been issued by the Central Government. Although these can be considered to be guidelines in respect of Review Medical Board, however, considering the fact that the findings arrived at in the report of the Review Medical Board, if found adverse will determine as to whether the candidate is found fit to be enrolled into the services of the Central Armed Police Page No.# 8/9 Forces. In the facts of the present case it is the medical report of the Medical Review Board which is lead to the rejection of the petitioner. Therefore, these Review Medical Guidelines cannot be treated to be mere guidelines and are required strictly adhered to by the respondent authorities. Under such circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to constitute a Review Medical Board to re-examine the writ petitioner and give a detailed report indicating the test which are undertaken to arrive at any finding that the petitioner suffers from the “Systolic hypertension” or any other disease which has rendered the petitioner unfit to be recruited in the services. While there can be no quarrel in the finding and the directions of the Apex Court rendered in order dated 20.10.2023 passed in SLP(C) Nos. 738- 741/2022 that ordinarily as a matter of rule the decision of the Review Medical Board should be treated to be final, however in the peculiar circumstances, as a reason in the present proceeding, it is seen that the guidelines itself laid down the procedure on the parameters of which undertake the process of evaluation by the Review Medical Board. As discussed above, this procedure has not been found to be adhered to by the respondent authorities. Since this a matter of employment in respect of the writ petitioner, the measures as laid down in the guidelines, in the opinion of this Court are required to be strictly followed and adhered to. This exercise directed to be undertaken by the respondents within a period of 90 days. If any medical opinion arrived at by the Review Medical Board, as directed to be constituted by this order after due evaluation of the writ petitioner is found to be contrary to the earlier medical opinion, the subsequent Page No.# 9/9 medical opinion shall prevail and the authorities shall pass consequential orders in respect of the appointment of the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant