Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010239372024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/6212/2024 GOUTAM KAIRI S/O- SRI GANESH LAL KAIRI R/O- VILL.- BADRIPAR PART-VI P.O. MADRIPAR P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788101. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI-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) Page No.# 2/8 EAST BLOCK LEVEL-4 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. 5:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE BELTOLA-BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GHY-781006. 6:THE PRESIDING OFFICER REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT/GD-2024 GROUP CENTRE CRPF SILCHAR UDHARBOND ROAD DOYAPORE ASSAM-788031. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S SUTRADHAR Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 16.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who had offered his candidature in response to the advertisement dated 24.11.2023 for selection and appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Force, SSF and Riflemen (General Duty) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2024. The Page No.# 3/8 petitioner qualified in the written test and in the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET). The petitioner got qualified marks in all the categories. However, However, the petitioner was directed to appear for a Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on 09.10.2024, and upon comprehensive evaluation, he was declared medically unfit on account of squint eye. Thereafter, upon medical examination the petitioner was found to be unfit. He was presented before the Review Medical examination which was held on 18.10.2024 and the findings of the Review Medical Board was declared on the same day, whereby the petitioner was declared to be unfit for Squint found in Left Eye. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these findings arrived at by the Review Medical Board are contrary to the finding given by the Choudhury Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Silchar. Thereafter, the petitioner got medically examined before the Choudhury Eye Hospital & Research Centre, Silchar and no obvious latent squint was found in the examination. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Sri Sankaradev Nethralaya, Basistha Road, Guwahati for detailed squint evaluation on 05.11.2024 and after detailed examination of the petitioner’s both eyes, the doctored opined that he does not have any Squint and has normal binocular vision with good stereopsis. He also examined himself before the GMCH, Guwahati, where also he was found fit. Page No.# 4/8 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021 wherein the guidelines for Review Medical examination/Review Medical Board were laid down. Referring to the said guidelines, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proper procedure by which the evaluation of the candidate is required to be made has been elaborately mentioned in the guidelines. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner be directed to re-examined by the Medical Authorities of the respondents by taking into consideration the opinion rendering by the Civil Medical practitioners and the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021. 4. Ms. S. Baruah, leaned CGC, on the other hand, disputes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the affidavit has been filed in the matter and there is no violation of the guidelines given in the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021. She submits that the Medical Board had found Squint in the left eye of the petitioner and which is a condition of rejection as per Clause-7(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021 for medical examination test. It is submitted that the Apex Court vide order dated 20.10.2023 passed in SLP (C) Nos. 738-741 of 2022 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Koushik Paul held that ordinarily the findings of the Review Medical Board must be treated to be filed. Page No.# 5/8 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. It is seen that the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021 lays down the guidelines for review medical examination. The same is extracted below: GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION (RME) IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES & ASSAM RIFLES As per laid down guidelines, optimum care should be taken in selection of candidates as a large number of candidates are available for selection. Every candidates must be medically fit to carry out tough duties of the Force. The discharge of the candidate on medical grounds within a few months of his/her enlistment results in loss of precious time in making selection as well as loss to the government's exchequer. 2. All candidates declared unfit during Detailed Medical Examination (DME) will be allowed to undergo Review Medical Examination (RME), provided they give their written consent by appending their signature on the intimation indicating the reasons for being unfit, as per Annexure-A-1. 3. Henceforth, RME of candidates will be conducted in continuation of DME preferably on the next day of DME. 4. The consent for RME as per Annexure-(A-1) duly signed by the candidate should be submitted within 24 hours after he/she is informed of his/her unfitness in DME. 5. Nodal Force for recruitment will endeavor to keep the venue for DME/RME in the vicinity of a Composite Hospital of CAPFS or Government Medical College/Hospitals, for facilitating specialist opinion/investigations etc, if required. 6. Guidelines for Review Medical Boards:- (a) Review Medical Board shall examine the candidate specifically for the deficiency for which the candidate has been declared unfit. [Also, the medical term used as cause of unfitness during the Initial Medical Examination may differ from that arrived at by the Review Medical Board]. (b) It will be ensured that the Medical Officer who has conducted DME of a candidate is not part of the RME Board for the same candidate. (c) The defect for which candidate has been declared unfit should be examined thoroughly and the findings must be supported by proper investigation reports, if applicable. (d) Review Medical Board may obtain opinion of concerned specialists or super specialists of Govt. Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt. Therefore, in cases of rejection in review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/ super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centers, whichever and wherever applicable. 7. Following examples are cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board:- a) In any cardiac case like valvular defects, ECG/Echocardiogram must be carried out. Page No.# 6/8 b) In cases of suspected lesions of chest like Hilar lymphadenitis, calcifled spots, Koch's infiltrations, any mass detected in X-Ray chest etc CT Chest should be carried out. c) For vascular defects like Varicose vein, vascular malformations etc, Colour Doppler should be carried out. d) To rule out any eye surgery like Lasik/ LASEK / PRK / PK/Glaucoma/ Squint/Pterygium Surgery etc. investigations may be carried out accordingly, viz. slit lamp examination /ophthalmoscopy /Corneal Topography/ OCT/ HVF/ Tonometry/VEP/ ERG / Synoptophore etc. should be carried out. e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/ hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X- Ray and electrocardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc, tests should also be carried out. f) For any suspected case of CAD, TMT test should be conducted. g) Any tremor in hands or other parts of body thyrotoxicosis should be ruled out and neurologist's opinion should be taken. h) For suspected Diabetes Mellitus cases GTT and Glycosylated Hb. test should be carried out. i) For Knock knee, bow leg, cubitus valgus and varus deformities, X-Ray plate with findings should be attached. j) For any type of deafness, audiometry should be carried out. k) For a case of dental points less than 14, OPG should be carried out. 6. The guidelines for Review Medical Board prescribed at Clause-7(d) clearly lays down to rule out any eye surgery like Lasik/ LASEK / PRK / PK/Glaucoma/ Squint/Pterygium Surgery etc. investigations may be carried out accordingly, viz. slit lamp examination /ophthalmoscopy /Corneal Topography/ OCT/ HVF/ Tonometry/VEP/ ERG / Synoptophore etc. should be carried out. 7. It is submitted by the learned CGC that the medical report of the writ petitioner in respect of the medical examination undertaken by the respondent authorities is available. 8. The affidavit and also medical report of the Medical Review Board, Page No.# 7/8 however, does not reflect as to why the opinion given by the Civil Medical Practitioner certifying the petitioner to be clinically fit has not been discussed and no investigation was carried out. 9. Under such circumstances, it is a clear case where there are two or three medical reports giving two contrary findings or indications. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter can be appropriately resolved by remitting it to the Review Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner in the presence of the concerned specialist from the Civil Hospital, and upon correlation of all the medical reports and the findings of the review medical examination, a reasoned order shall be passed. If, after proper examination as directed, the petitioner is found to be medically fit, necessary consequential order for the petitioner’s appointment to the service shall be issued. If, on the other hand, the petitioner is found to be medically unfit in terms of the medical examination that will be undertaken by following the procedure, then appropriate order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on medical grounds shall be issued. The petitioner will appear before the Medical Authorities within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner may file a representation duly supported by all the relevant medical documents and reports of tests available Page No.# 8/8 with him in original. If the petitioner appears before the authorities as directed, the directions contained in this order shall be carried out within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The representation must be filed in a prescribed format as may be deemed necessary, 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant