Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010278432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7473/2025 FORID UDDIN S/O ASADUDDIN, VILL-TOWN BANDARKUNAP.O- ERALIGOOL P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ), ASSAM PIN 788723. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-06 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK 7 LEVEL 4 SECTOR R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. Page No.# 2/4 5:PRESIDING OFFICER- RME BOARD RECRUITMENT OF CT/GD-2025 GC CRPF GUWAHATI-781023 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DEKA, MR N ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. D Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R Devi, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination on the ground that he suffers from a chronic skin disease. The department after examination by the RME referred him for opinion before the before the specialist Dermatologist in Silchar Medical College. The Dermatologist had given the following opinion: “This lesion has been examined properly. It is non-contagious, the lesion will not harmful his day to day activities and will not be a hindrance to his performance in duties assigned to him.” 3. The case of the petitioner was still not re-considered by the RME on the ground that the medical opinion did not rule out vitiligo. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before the Court the opinion of Civilian Doctor and a Specialist in Dermatologist Page No.# 3/4 where it says that the patient does not have any signs of acute of chronic illness and he is physically fit to perform regular duties and that the lesion is not suggestive of vitiligo or leucoderma. 5. What appears to the court is that the Review Medical Board has taken the opinion of the Specialist rendered in the Silchar Medical Hospital. To interpret that the petitioner is not fit for rendering his service in view of there being no finding that the petitioner does not have a chronic skin disease. This interpretation according to the court upon a plain reading of the medical opinion cannot be accepted. The review medical board will either have to accept the opinion in full or reject it. It cannot be permitted to accept part of the opinion and go for a further interpretation on the opinion. If the queries put by the Review Medical Board or the respondents before the civilian specialist, is not answered, then either they will have to reject or issue a fresh proposal raising specific concerns to be answered by the civilian specialists. 6. Under such circumstances, on the question of the health status of the petitioner vis-à-vis the guidelines issued, this court remands the matter back to the respondents to re-constitute a review medical authority to re-examine the petitioner taking into account the various medical certificates; medical opinions and clinical findings that may be available. The review medical board will also consider presence of a dermatologist from a civilian hospital so that proper opinion is rendered in respect of the petitioner. 7. By the order earlier order dated 05.01.2026, one post has been directed to be kept vacant in the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF. 8. This interim order will operate till such final orders are issued by the Review Medical Board as directed by in this order. 9. If the Review Medical Board upon reconsideration finds that the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 is capable of rendering services, then consequential process/ orders will be passed for appointment of the petitioner. 10. In the event the Review Medical Board, upon re-evaluation as directed, finds that the petitioner is not capable of being appointed, no further orders are necessary and the interim order will cease to have any effect. 11. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. As directed, the interim order dated 05.01.2026 will have in effect till 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or till such orders are passed by the Review Medical Board, whichever is earlier. JUDGE Comparing Assistant