Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010248822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/6474/2024 DEBARAJ RAJBONGSHI S/O- SRI PARAMANANDA RAJBONGSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO. 2 DONGAGAON P.O.- KALAIGAON P.S.- BIJNI DISTRICT- CHIRANG (ASSAM) PIN- 783390. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) RUKMINI NAGAR P.O.- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI- 781006. Page No.# 2/4 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI NAGAR NEW DELHI- 110003. 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI- 110003. 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GAROLINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA- 793011. 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI- 110003. Page No.# 3/4 ------------ Advocate for : MR. U N CHATTRY Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. O Laskar, 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 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 “Yellow discoloration of both eye (sclera) and suffering from jaundice”. 3. The learned CGC has placed before the Court the medical records pertaining to the writ petitioner which reflects that the pathological test undertaken revealed that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice on the date when he had presented himself for medical examination. The findings of the DME dated 18.10.2024 was however not based on any pathological clinical test. However, the RME conducted pathological test on 29.10.2024 which reflected on the basis of which the RME returned a finding that the petitioner had been suffering from jaundice. The RME report is dated 01.11.2024. Subsequently the petitioner was presented himself before the Fakkaruddin Ali Ahmed College and Hospital where his blood test conducted did not reveal that he was suffering from jaundice. The petitioner has also relied on an opinion rendered by the Superintendent of Bijni Sub- Divisional Civil Hospital to the effect that the color of his eyes which is yellowish may be congenital. On these grounds, the petitioner has assailed the findings of the DME and the RME rejecting his candidature. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties and upon careful examination of the pleadings as well as the medical reports available, it is seen that the blood test for the RME was conducted on 29.10.2024 and the RME report was rendered in 01.11.2024 however, the petitioner presented himself for tests in the civilian hospital on 11.11.2024. Therefore, it is possible that on two different dates and Page No.# 4/4 two different laborites findings are possible. On a day when the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities on the finding of the medical report of the RME, there are no separate medical tests or medical opinions available with the petitioner to show that the findings arrived at by the CRPF authorities are incorrect or atleast there are contradictory findings by any other competent authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to place any material to show that the rejection by the RME is contrary to the guidelines or the Rules prescribed. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made of the writ petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Medical records placed before the Court are returned back to the learned CGC. JUDGE Comparing Assistant