Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010248822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6231/2024 JONALI DEVI S/O SITARAM CHOWHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADAMTALA PO KABIRALI DIST UDALGURI ASSAM 784525 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK LEVEL-4 Page No.# 2/5 SECTOR 01 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. 5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT/GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2024 GROUP CENTRE CRPF COMPOSITE HOSPITAL-23 6:THE MEDICAL BOARD CT/GD RECRUITMENT BOARD GROUP CENTRE CRPF GUWAHATI AMERIGOG ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MD H R AHMED Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 09.12 .2025 Heard Md. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner presented her candidature in response to the advertisement dated 24.11.2023 for the recruitment of the Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), SFF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2024. The petitioner has successfully completed her Computer Based Written Test, Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). According to the petitioner she secured 89.57667 marks in the written test. However, the petitioner was declared unfit in the medical examination on the ground of "Squint" and “multiple old hesitation cut marks in the left forearms”. The Review Page No.# 3/5 Medical Board declared her unfit citing "past history of deliberate self harm (nervous instability)”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sent for further evaluation before the GMCH by the CRPF Authority in the Psychiatric Department. The opinion of the Psychiatric Department is to the effect that there is no psychiatric illness to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the opinion by the Specialist of the GMCH and the petitioner having been presented by the respondents themselves for further opinion, the opinion of the Specialist of the GMCH ought to have been considered by the Review Medical Board. 4. The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavit and have mentioned that due to past history of deliberate self harm the petitioner was rejected. In paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit at sub-clause (C) the respondents made the following averments: “(C) The prescription submitted by the petitioner from GMCH Guwahati from Psychiatrist marks which suggest some other person may have appeared in front of Doctors of said hospital.” 5. The petitioner was therefore, rejected after being declared unfit due to the past history of deliberate self harms. That apart there is also further averment: “(E) The petitioner become restless and upset during declaration of her result and she hit her head and limbs on floor, started crying loudly, running here and there and tried to harm herself by hitting her head. Legs in nearby chairs and lying down on floor by shouting and crying which was lasted almost 50 minutes in front of board which itself proofs her nervous instability and emotional breakdown. The video recording of the petitioner is also available with CRPF. Hence, the petitioner was declared “UNFIT” as Page No.# 4/5 per para 6 (16) para No.7 of guidelines for recruitment medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, May 2015. 6. The learned CGC therefore, submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be enrolled in CAPFs as it would be risk giving responsibilities upon her recruitment to herself as well as to her colleagues. 7. The medical records placed before the Court reveals that the opinion of the Psychiatrist shows that there is no mental illness noticed in the writ petitioner. The opinion however, reflects that the petitioner was presented in the OPD of the Psychiatric Department and there is no indication that the petitioner was evaluated as an indoor patient. The opinion also does not reflect any presence of old hesitation cut marks on the left forearm. 8. Under such circumstances and in view of the clear averment made by the respondents that it may be some other person not the petitioner who may have been presented before the Psychiatric Department in the GMCH, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the Department. The petitioner will report before the Review Medical Board and the said Board will refer the petitioner for proper evaluation by a Psychiatric in the GMCH. The evaluation by the Psychiatric shall be made by treating the petitioner as an indoor patient and all connected evaluation reports/records etc. must be supplied to the petitioner at the time when the petitioner is discharged from the hospital along with the medical opinion. 9. Any such opinion along with the medical evaluation reports undertaken by the GMCH shall be reconsidered by the Review Medical Board and thereafter, appropriate order will be passed. Page No.# 5/5 10. With the above observations, this writ petition stands closed without any further directions. 11. The petitioner will present herself before the Review Medical Board within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If after proper evaluation, the petitioner is declared to be fit then appropriate order will have to be passed by the respondent authority regarding the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner. 12. The entire exercise shall have to be undertaken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant