Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010279982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7384/2025 BIDHAN DAS S/O SRI DILIP KUMAR DAS, R/O VILL- DOYAPORE PART- II, P.O. UDHARBOND, P.S. UDHARBOND, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788030. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001. 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI PIN- 110001. 3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK LEVEL- 4 R K PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 6:THE PRESIDING OFFICER REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD C/T GD- 2025 RECRUITMENT GROUP CENTRE CRPF SILCHAR UDHARBAND ROAD DAYAPUR ASSAM 788030 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SUTRADHAR, MR. J P BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 06.03.2026 Heard Mr. S Sutradhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the fact that, in the process of selection and appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CAPFs undertaken by the respondent department, the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of having squint eyes. The petitioner was presented for medical examination and by a report dated 22.11.2025, the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) held that the petitioner to be unfit because of presence of squint in the eyes. The petitioner was again examined by the Page No.# 3/5 Review Medical Board (RME), and the RME also returned the same finding that he was considered unfit due to the squint in the eyes. 3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the private eye hospital, namely Sankardev Netralaya, who upon conducting the tests had returned the finding that the petitioner does not have squint. This report is dated 09.12.2025. 4. It is the submission of the counsel of the petitioner that in view of a report indicating that there is no defect in the eyes of the petitioner, his rejection during the process of selection on medical grounds is contrary, and therefore the respondents be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by re- examining him and if required, in the presence of the expert who had undertaken examination of the petitioner in the private hospital. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon an order passed by this court in W.P(C) No. 6212/2024 passed on 16.10.2025. 5. The respondents have filed an affidavit opposing the contentions of the writ petitioner. In the said affidavit, the respondents have stated that after the petitioner was declared unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), the petitioner was referred to an eye specialist at Silchar Medical College and the opinion rendered by an expert on 27.11.2025, it was opined that the petitioner suffers from a condition called esophoria squint of the right eye, which was noted on clinical evaluation. The learned CGC further submits that under Clause 6.6 of the guidelines, it is mentioned that any degree of squint is considered a ground for rejection. Under such circumstances where expert from the civil hospital has also supported the findings of the DME and the RME, there is no scope for re-examination of the petitioner. The learned CGC has also referred to an order passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Page No.# 4/5 Nos. 738-741/2022 dated 20.10.2023, whereby it was held that the decision taken by the Review Medical Board in all such cases should be treated to be final. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available before the court, it is seen that in the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in W.P(C) No. 6212/2024, which also is a case where the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground of suffering from squint in the eyes. This Court on the pleadings available before the court in that matter, held that there was an opinion rendered by a civil medical practitioner certifying the petitioner therein to be clinically fit. However, this finding was not referred to or discussed in the Review Medical Board and no investigation to that effect was carried out. It was under such circumstances this court had directed the respondents therein to reconstitute a medical board and permitted the petitioner to appear before the Board for re-examination by filing a representation supported by all relevant medical documents and reports of tests etc. and pursuant thereto, necessary examination will be carried out for review medical examination by the authorities concerned. 7. However, in the facts of the present case, even before the Review Medical Examination (RME) was conducted pursuant to the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), the petitioner was referred to an eye specialist at Silchar Medical College, who had rendered an opinion that squint was present in the petitioner’s right eye. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was placed before the Review Medical Board, which had also rejected the petitioner on account of the presence of squint. The guidelines clearly reveal that any degree of squint is a ground for rejection. The report of Shankardeva Netralaya, which is placed before this Court to suggest that the petitioner does not suffer from any Page No.# 5/5 disability or squint, does not discuss the opinions rendered during the Detailed Medical Examination, the Review Medical Examination, as also the opinion of the Ophthalmology Department of Silchar Medical College. The said examination was conducted after the Review Medical Board as also the opinion rendered by the Ophthalmology Department of Silchar Medical College. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the writ petitioner and issue a direction to the respondents to re- constitute a medical board for re-examination of the writ petitioner. The directions issued by the Apex Court in SLP Nos. 738-741/2022 dated 20.10.2023 would be squarely applicable in a case of this nature. 9. In view of the discussions above, the Court considers the writ petition being devoid of merit and therefore disinclined to issue any orders. 10. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost. 11. Pending IAs, if any, are also dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant