Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010239372024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5952/2024 MOKLEJUL ALI S/O- KASHEM ALI, R/O- VILLAGE KHUDIGAON, PART II, P.O- LAKHIGANJI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783345 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY , TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. PIN- 110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY BLOCK- 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NER STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE RUKMININAGAR P.O- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK MO-10 LODHI ROAD Page No.# 2/6 PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI-03 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 7:DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011 8:DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE BLOCK NO 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 9:DIRECTOR GENERAL SHASASTRA SEEMA BAL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K PURAM NEW DELHI-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR. D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (C.G.C) Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 18.11.2025 Heard Mr. R Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 24.11.2023 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, applied for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination for the year 2024. The petitioner claims to assert eligibility for the post, thus participating in the recruitment process. The petitioner was declared successful in both the Computer Based Test as well as the Physical Standard Test (PST)/ Physical Efficiency Test (PET). However, during the subsequent Medical Examinations, i.e. Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Board, the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of “Defective distant vision RE 6/9 and Gross tremors present”. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been found medically fit earlier in a recruitment held by the State Level Recruitment Board for the post of Assam Commando Battalions on 21.04.2022 but he did not select because he could not score the requisite cut-off marks. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had clear the detailed medical examination held by the State Level Police Recruitment Board for the post of Constable (AB/UB), Assam Police on 29.10.2024 after 15 days of his rejection by the Review Medical Board of Staff Selection Commission. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits Page No.# 4/6 that after being declared medically unfit and dissatisfied with the opinion of the medical reports, the petitioner examined himself before the Kokarjhar Medical College & Hospital and Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. The specialized Doctors from the department of Ophthalmology and General Medicine of both the Medical Colleges vide their Certificate dated 18.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 respectively opined that the petitioner has neither defective vision nor has he gross tremors in his hands. In the light of these contrary medical opinions—the petitioner has approached this Court, praying for an appropriate direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.11.2023. 4. The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavits. The learned CGC for the respondents has relied upon the Revised guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Forces and Assam Rifles to show that as per Paragraph 11 sub-paragraph 5 at page 40 of the Guidelines, the petitioner was declared unfit. The learned CGC submits that as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the present system in which only one Review Medical Examination is allowed and there is no appeal against the decision of the Review Medical Board. The learned CGC respondents has placed reliance on 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. 5. 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 affidavit filed by the respondents. Page No.# 5/6 6. Upon perusal of the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the rejection of his application on the grounds of being found disqualified by the CRPF Authorities. The petitioner’s prayer before this Court is to allow the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.11.2023, in light of the opinion rendered by the Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital and Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. The opinions indicate that the petitioner is found clinically fit at the time of examination with no gross tremor. 7. Reference is also made to the guidelines for the Review Medical Examination, which lay down certain conditions for the process. These guidelines specify that, ordinarily, there is no right of appeal against the findings of the recruiting Medical Officer or the initial Medical Board. However, if the government is satisfied with the evidence placed before them by the candidate, indicating the possibility of an error in judgment by the recruiting Medical Officer or the initial Medical Board, they may allow re-examination by the Review Medical Board. The guidelines also prescribe in detail the manner in which the medical evidence relied upon by the candidate should be presented before the Competent Authority when seeking reconsideration. 8. The facts of the present case reveal that there are contradictory medical opinions. On one hand, the Detailed Medical Board and Review Medical Board rejected the petitioner on the grounds of Defective distant vision RE 6/9 and Gross tremors present while on the other hand, after presenting him before the Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital and Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, the doctors of the colleges opined that the petitioner is found clinically fit at the time of examination with no gross tremor. Under these circumstances, the issue Page No.# 6/6 becomes a disputed question of fact, which a Writ Court ordinarily would not delve into. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to mould the relief prayed for by the petitioner and permit the petitioner to approach the Competent Authorities of the respondent within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner may file an application, duly supported by all relevant medical documents, including reports of tests, if any, undertaken/undergone by the petitioner before the Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital and Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. If the relevant medical documents are submitted along with the representation, the respondent authorities will take note of such medical opinions. If these opinions are found to be based on proper tests and examinations conducted by the medical authorities of Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital and Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, the respondent authorities will reconstitute a Review Medical Board for the re-examination of the petitioner. If, in the opinion of the respondent authorities, civilian specialists from the concerned departments are necessary, they may also be included in the Review Medical Board. 10. If the representation, as directed above, is filed by the writ petitioner, then the directions contained in this order shall be carried out within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The representation must be filed in the prescribed format, in accordance with the revised uniform guidelines for Review Medical Examination in CRPF and Assam Rifles and must also include a certified copy of the order of this Court. 11. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant