Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010280852025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7370/2025 KIRON RAY D/O RAJ KUMAR RAY, R/O VILL- LALCHERRA CHA BAGAN, P.O. FANAIRBOND, DIST- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788737, ROLL NO. 5111006664. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 03. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY- 6. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K. PURAM Page No.# 2/6 NEW DELHI-06. 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI-23. 6:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT /GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 GC CRPF UDARBAND DAYAPUR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030. 7:THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT/ GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 GC CRPF UDARBAND DAYAPUR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 07-05-2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has assailed the findings of the Medical Page No.# 3/6 Board as well as the Review Medical Board, in holding the petitioner to be unfit for recruitment in Armed Forces on account of defective distance vision. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to examine the petitioner medically by an independent medical board. 3. The petitioner in pursuance to a notice dated 05-09-2024, issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), had participated in a selection process for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process and the petitioner is found to have cleared various stages of the selection process. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear on 12- 11-2025 for undertaking a detailed medical examination before the constituted Medical Board. The Board upon examining the petitioner had rejected the candidature of the petitioner by holding her to be medically unfit on the ground of having “defective distance vision of R-6/12, L-6/12”. The petitioner being aggrieved applied for being examined by a Review Medical Board. Accordingly, a Review Medical Board was constituted and the Board before arriving its conclusion in the matter with regard to the fitness of the petitioner, had referred the petitioner to the Ophthalmology Department of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital for examination of her vision acuity. The Ophthalmology Department of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital on examining the petitioner opined that the petitioner was suffering from defective distance vision. Accordingly, the Review Medical Board upon examining the petitioner had opined that the petitioner was unfit due to “defective distance vision of R-6/12, L-6/12”. Page No.# 4/6 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The facts as noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. The petitioner’s distance vision is found to have not conformed to the guidelines as laid down in the matter for medical examination in connection with the recruitment process in question. The petitioner has in support of her contentions placed on record a report from an Ophthalmologist in Srimanta Sankardev Nethralaya, Guwahati. In terms of the said report, the petitioner was having normal vision and there was no defect therein. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner before she was examined by the Review Medical Board, she came to be forwarded to the Ophthalmology Department of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital for examination and on said examination being carried out, the Doctor examining the petitioner in Ophthalmology Department of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital had opined that the petitioner was having defective distance vision. Accordingly, the Review Medical Board had also held the petitioner to be medically unfit. The vision standard requisite for recruitment to the CAPF including the Assam Rifles is laid down in the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles, May, 2015, the petitioner on examination having been found to have “defective distance vision R-6/12, L-6/12”, the same is found to be not conforming to the standard so set out in the said guidelines. While the petitioner has placed reliance to a report of the Doctor of Srimanta Sankardev Nethralaya, this Court finds that the said report does not take into consideration the opinion rendered by the Medical Board carrying out the Detailed Medical Examination of Page No.# 5/6 the petitioner by the Review Medical Board as well as the opinion of the Eye Specialist of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital. The Review Medical Board having also taking into consideration the opinion of the Ophthalmology Department of the Silchar Medical College & Hospital, this Court would not proceed to accept the contention of the petitioner based on the report as brought on record by her of Ophthalmologist of the Srimanta Sankardev Nethralaya. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. Koushik Paul [SLA(C) Nos. 738-741/2022], on the issue involved in the present proceeding, had drawn the following conclusions:- “In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments/orders. However, we must observe that normally as a rule, the decision taken by the Review Medical Board in such cases should be treated as final.” 7. The said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and accordingly, in the facts and circumstances involved in the present proceeding and noticed, hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner made in the present proceeding would not mandate an acceptance. 8. In view of the above observations and discussions, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same accordingly stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant