Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010248822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/6245/2024 SAMIRAN BARMAN S/O- SRI DHARANI BARMAN R/O- ALAGJAR P.O. BARAMA DIST. BAKSA PIN- 781346 ASSAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 2:MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (PF-VI)NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 3:REGIONAL DIRECTOR NORTH EASTERN REGION STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006. 4:PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST (PST)/ PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST (PET) BOARD Page No.# 2/5 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDING OFFICER CT/GD-2024 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GUWAHATI-781023. 5:REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD REPRESENTED BY PRESIDING OFFICER CT/GD-24 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GHY-781023. 6:GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF SURGERY BHANGAGARH GHY-781032. 7:SURAKSHA DIAGNOSTICS SRI KAMAKHYA TOWER CHRISTIANBASTI GHY-781005. ------------ Advocate for : MD B ISLAM Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. B Islam, 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 Page No.# 3/5 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 “Pilonidal Sinus”. 3. It appears that the detail medical examination and the Review Medical Examination relied upon a diagnostic report in respect of the writ petitioner issued by a private diagnostic centre “Suraksha Diagnistic”, where the impression reflected in the report is as under: “Impression: Present MRI reveals pionidal sinus at Inter-gluteal cleft region in midline. No adjacent inflammatory changes, sizeable fluid collection or obvious internal communication is seen.” 4. Subsequently the petitioner presented himself to the GMCH where the report of the GMC reveals as under: “CEMRI of Pelvis (3T):- Study reveals a blind ending sinus tract in the gluteal cleft with intack overlying cutis at the level tip of coccyx extending from the skin surface for a depth of approx. 1.6 cm into the subcutaneour plan e. No diffusion restriction seen on DWI. On post contrast study, no absormal enhancement is seen. No evidence of collection or enteric communication can be seen with the sinus tract in the present scan. Type III coceyx seen. The urinary bladder is normally distended with normal wall thickness. The prostate and the seminal vesicles are normal. The external and internal and sphineter along with the intersphincteric plane is well outlined without any sinus or fistulous tract. The puborectalis sling appear normal. The ischioanal and ischiorectal fat pad reveal normal signal intensity. The muscles around the hip joint reveal normal signal intensity. Subchondral cyst is noted in right acetabulum. Impression: CEMRI of pelvis reveals a blind ending sinus tract in the gluteal cleft as described.” Page No.# 4/5 5. Perusal of the same reveals that there is contradiction between the findings by Suraksha Diagnistics in the diagnostics reports as well as the findings by the GMC in their diagnostic report. The Suraksha diagnostics report was given on 28.09.2024 and the GMC report was issued on 17.10.2024. Therefore, the time between these two reports is not unreasonable. 6. It appears that this report could not be placed before Review Medical authorities as there is no provisions in the selection procedure prescribed. The guidelines for recruitment medical examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles revised on May, 2015 lays down general grounds of rejection under Clause-6. 7. The learned CGC has referred Sub-clause 21 of clause 6 to submit that the petitioner’s case was rejected under this sub-clause. Whether the medical condition stated to be presented by the in the petitioner would be included in other eroractal diseases is not specified under clause 6 sub-clause 21. It is the decision to be taken by the medical authorities CRPF. 8. Under such circumstances, in view of the contradictory medical opinions by the private diagnostic centre and the GMCH, 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. 9. 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 Page No.# 5/5 copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant