Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010248822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/6252/2024 TAHMINA KHATUN D/O- ASUR UDDIN VILL- ANANDAPUR P.O.- MAJGAON P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BAJALI ASSAM PIN- 781313. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS CRPF NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K. PURAM Page No.# 2/4 NEW DELHI- 110066. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF HEAD QUARTER BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER RECRUITMENT BOARD GUWAHATI (ASSAM) (IRLA- 77318) 120 BN CRPF (MEMBER-1-DV/DME BOARD) CT/GD-2024 GC CRPF GUWAHATI. 5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD (RME BOARD) (IRLA- 9301) CH GUWAHATI CRPF REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER. ------------ Advocate for : MS. S B CHOUDHURY Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. S.B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S Roy, 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 “Scoliosis of Spine (Lateral Deviation of Dorso- Lumber Spine)”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after being declared medically unfit and dissatisfied with the opinion of the medical reports, the petitioner examined herself before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. The evaluation under GMCH revels that there was no bony abnormalities appreciates and not scolitic curve was seen by the specialist doctor 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. Perusal of the same reveals that there is contradiction between the findings by the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination as well as the findings by the GMCH. Therefore, these two reports are not unreasonable. 5. 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 c at page 30 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 Page No.# 4/4 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. 6. 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. 7. Under such circumstances, in view of the contradictory medical opinions, this Court considers it appropriate to remand the matter back to the respondent authorities to examine the petitioner by referring to specialist if the need so arises thereafter pass appropriate order. The examination will be conducted by the review medical board and thereafter if it is found that there are not abnormalities present then consequential orders in respect of selection and appointment of the writ petitioner should be issued. Any such opinion rendered in terms of the directions, copies thereof will be served on the writ petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of. The directions contained be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant