Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010239372024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/5958/2024 SOURAV KALITA AND 4 ORS. S/O- JYOTISH KALITA R/O- BHAWANIPUR (SANTIPUR) P.O- BHAWANIPUR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781352 2: HARJYOTI DAS S/O- NAREN DAS R/O- VILLAGE- PACHIM NAKHETI P.O- ULABORI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781367 3: ANKUR KALITA S/O- DANDI KALITA R/O- VILLAGE- JUGURKUCHI SRIPUR P.O- KHATIKUCHI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781369 4: HIMANGSHU NATH S/O- PRAMOD CHANDRA NATH Page No.# 2/7 R/O- VILLAGE- BAHUABHETI P.O- HAIBARGAONI DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782002 5: OMJEE KUSHWAHA S/O-RAMNIWASH KUSHWAHA R/O- VILLAGE- WATIZUR P.O- WATIZUR DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782446 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 PRAGATI VIHAR Page No.# 3/7 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-22 ------------ Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS Page No.# 4/7 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 petitioners. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioners, 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 petitioners claim to assert eligibility for the post, thus participating in the recruitment process. The petitioners were 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 “Pectus Excavatum”. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1, namely Sourav Kalita, has been found medically fit earlier in a recruitment held by BSF for the post of CT(TM) on 02.05.2023 for the year 2021-2022. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that after being declared medically unfit and dissatisfied with the opinion of the medical reports, the petitioner No.1 examined himself before the Nalbari Medical College & Hospital on 28.10.2025; petitioner No. 2 examined himself before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 25.10.2025; Petitioner No. 3 examined himself before the Nalbari Medical College & Hospital on 28.10.2025; petitioner No. 4 examined himself before the Nagaon Medical College & Hospital on 30.10.2025 and Page No.# 5/7 petitioner No. 5 examined himself before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 23.10.2025 . The specialized Doctors from the Medical Colleges opined that none of the petitioners have Pectus Excavatum. In the light of these contrary medical opinions—the petitioners have 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 6 sub-paragraph 12 at page 07 of the Guidelines, the petitioners were 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. 6. Upon perusal of the writ petition and after hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the petitioners are before this Court challenging the rejection of their application on the grounds of being found disqualified by the CRPF Authorities. The petitioners prayer before this Court is Page No.# 6/7 to allow the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.11.2023, in light of the opinion rendered by the Medical Colleges & Hospital. The opinions indicate that the petitioners are found clinically fit. 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 petitioners on the grounds of Pectus Excavatum while on the other hand, after presenting them before the Medical College & Hospitals, the doctors of the colleges opined that the petitioners are found clinically fit. Under these circumstances, the issue 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 petitioners and permit the petitioners 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 petitioners may file an application, duly supported by all relevant medical documents, including reports of tests, if Page No.# 7/7 any, undertaken/undergone by the petitioners before the concerned Medical College & Hospital. If the relevant medical documents are submitted along with the representations, 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 concerned Medical College & Hospitals, 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 petitioners, 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 representations. The representations 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