Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010279762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7322/2025 MUNSER ALI ROLL NO. 5105019381, S/O- JAHAR ALI, R/O- VILL.- CHATIA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BLOCK NO. 12, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE- BASISTHA ROAD P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 10 Page No.# 2/8 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD DV/DME/RME- CT (GD) EXAM- 2025 CENTRE- CAPFS COMPOSITE HOSPITAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF) PATGAON GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 01.06.2026 Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned standing counsel for CGC representing all the respondents. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for setting aside the report of the Review Medical Board dated 19.11.2025, by which the petitioner was declared as unfit to join the post of constable in Central Armed Police Force. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the authorities to re-evaluate the fitness of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines for medical examination dated 31.05.2021. Page No.# 3/8 3. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.09.2024, published by the Staff Selection Commission for the recruitment of constable in Central Armed Police Forces and Riflemen in Assam Rifles and some other posts applied along with other candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the computer based test, wherein, he came out successful. 4. The petitioner further states that, after the declaration of the select list, he appeared in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET), wherein he was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to appear for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), which was scheduled to be held on 15.11.2025. 5. On the said date, i.e., 15.11.2025, the petitioner's documents were verified, and thereafter the result of the Detailed Medical Examination was furnished to him, whereby he was declared medically unfit on account of hypertension. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for Review Medical Examination (RME) and on 19.11.2025, his biometric details were recorded and he was taken to Narayana Hospital, Amingaon, where his blood pressure was checked and on 21.11.2025, the report of the Review Medical Examination was furnished to the petitioner, by which he was again declared medically unfit on account of hypertension. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the guidelines, more specifically Guideline No. 6, clause ‘d’, the Review Medical Board is required to obtain opinion from specialist or super specialist of Government Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt with regard to the medical condition of the candidate. Page No.# 4/8 7. He further submitted that in cases of rejection in Review Medical Examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with test and investigation as well as opinion of the specialist and super specialist of Government doctors or doctors from the Government approved private Medical Centers. 8. He further cited clause ‘e’ of Guideline No. 7, wherein, it is provided that the candidates who stands rejected on the ground of hypertension should be admitted in a hospital by the board before giving their final opinion. He also has placed that the hospitalization report should indicate, whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or due to any organic disease and that in all cases different test should be carried out. 9. He submits that none of these requirements were fulfilled with the petitioner and that the affidavit filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, reflects that the Review Medical Examination Board obtained the opinion of a physician, that is a medical specialist who was one of the board member. He as such submits that this is not contemplated under the guidelines. The opinion should be from a specialist or super specialist of Government Medical College which has to be taken in cases of doubt by the board. 10. Ms. Baruah, the learned CGC submits that the Review Medical Board admitted upon finding that the petitioner is suffering from hypertension on 19.11.2025 and petitioner was discharged on 21.11.2025 and during the said period the petitioner was found to have multiple readings of his blood pressure. She, therefore, submits that petitioner was found unfit by Review Medical Examination Board on 21.11.2025, and as such, his case was rejected for appointment as a constable in the Central Armed Police Force. Page No.# 5/8 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully passed all other preceding examinations and that in the Detailed Medical Examination, he was found to be unfit to which he applied for a Review Medical Examination. 12. It is provided in the guidelines, namely Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for recruitment in CAPFs, NSG and AR, more specifically, in Clause No. 6, that Hypertension is a ground for rejection of appointment to such post and in the revised guidelines promulgated in 31.05.2021, it is provided that the cause of unfitness may differ in respect of the Detail Medical Examination and the Review Medical Examination and it is also provided that Medical Officer who had conducted the Detail Medical Examination cannot be a part of the Review Medical Examination Board for the same candidate. Under sub clause ‘c’ of Clause 6, it is further provided that a candidate can be declared as unfit only after a thorough examination and that the findings must be supported by proper investigation reports. 13. Thereafter in sub clause ‘d’, it is provided that Review Medical Board may obtain opinion of concern specialist or super specialist of Government Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt. The word used in the said sub clause is may, which reflects that it is the discretionary power of the Review Medical Board. 14. It is further provided in the said sub clause that while rejecting the candidature of a candidate on the grounds of being unfit in Review Medical Examination, the clinical findings should be corroborated by required test done in a Government Hospitals or in private centers approved by the Government. 15. Under clause 7 of the said revised guidelines, certain examples are cited Page No.# 6/8 for guidance of the Review Medical Board and in the same, in sub clause ‘e’, it is provided that for candidates who have been rejected on grounds of hypertension, he should be admitted in a hospital by the board. Then after obtaining all the reports such as whether his blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement or whether it is due to any disease and all other reports which are mandatory in nature, the board should give its final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. 16. In the affidavit filed by responder nos. 4 and 5, it is simply stated that the petitioner was admitted in a CH-BSF Patgaon Hospital and his blood pressure was checked and it was found to have multiple readings more than the prescribed limit and, as such, he was declared unfit by the Review Medical Examination Board. 17. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Review Medical Examination Board had obtained the opinion of a physician (Medical Specialist), who was one of the member of the board. Although it was stated in the said affidavit that the Review Medical Examination Board had followed the requirements provided in Guideline No. 6, clause ‘1’, of uniform guidelines, but in the said affidavit, it was not stated, as to whether, Guideline No. 6 and 7 of the revised guidelines published in the year 2021, was followed properly. 18. A careful reading of the said revised guidelines, would show that the Review Medical Examination Board, should admit the candidate, whose case has been rejected by the detail Medical Board on grounds of Hypertension, in a hospital and get all the test done and should also see the cause of the blood pressure and then give final opinion and by a conjoint reading of Guideline No. 6 and 7, it can be deduced that the Review Medical Board may also obtained Page No.# 7/8 opinion of concern specialist or super specialist of Government Medical College in cases of doubt. 19. It can be further deduced that while rejecting the candidature by the Review Medical Examination Board, the clinical findings given by the super specialist or the specialist should be corroborated with the test reports. The said exercise seems to have not been done in the instant case, which is discernable from the affidavit filed in the instant matter. 20. It is seen that only by measuring the blood pressure of the petitioner, which was found to be fluctuating, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. There was no finding as to the reason of the fluctuating blood pressure, whether it was due to some disease or it is transient in nature. Further it is also seen that either the test were not done or the reports of the said tests were not considered while declaring the petitioner unfit in the said examination. 21. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be subjected to medical examination by the Review Medical Examination Board once again by following the mandate of Guideline No. 6 and 7 of the revised Guidelines of 2021. 22. It is further directed that the authorities would complete the exercise of the reviewing the medical health of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. 23. The petitioner to place the certified copy of this order before the authorities as soon as possible. The authorities are further directed to adjust the petitioner, if found eligible, in any post even without the same being included in the selection process where he appeared. Page No.# 8/8 24. The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant