Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9969 (GAU)

SUBRATA SARKAR v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

WP(C)/1839/2024 · 2025-05-29

Soumitra Saikia

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010065872024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1839/2024 SUBRATA SARKAR S/O. UDAY SARKAR, R/O. VILL.-NO. JAMDOHA, PO..- GERUKABARI, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783390. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2:THE DIRECTOR GEBERAL OF CRPF GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GC CRPF 9TH MILE GUWAHATI-23 ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMANDENT (ADM) DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF GUWAHATI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR. S. SUR,MR S ISLAM,MRS. M SAIKIA,MS. B CHETIA,MS. D BORA,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 30.05.2025 Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.03.2023 whereby the petitioner was declared unfit for combatant role in the armed forces as well as the order dated 15.09.2017 whereby the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled. The petitioner had applied for and was recruited to the post of Constable (General Duty), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) pursuant to the recruitment process initiated by the Central Reserved Police Force. The petitioner was selected in the recruitment process for appointment as Constable (GD) in CRPF by the letter of appointment dated 11.05.2017. During the training period the petitioner was found to be suffering from “Acute Psychosis”. The Medical Board upon conducting the medical examination at a Composite Hospital, GC CRPF, Guwahati had found the petitioner to be a case of “Acute Psychosis” and had declared him unfit. In view of such circumstances, his candidature was cancelled by order dated 15.09.2017. Being aggrieved, the Page No.# 3/7 petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6570/2017 and by order dated 14.12.2022 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to provide further opportunity to the petitioner to be subjected to medical examination. It was directed that if the result of that medical examination is in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities will pass appropriate orders on the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner and if it is against the petitioner then the petitioner be duly informed. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner subjected himself to medical test. In the review medical board which was held pursuant to the direction of the Court’s order, the petitioner reported before Composite Hospital, GC, CRPF and thereafter, he was referred to the Department of Psychiatry, GMCH. The Clinical Psychologist’s Report dated 25.01.2023 revealed that he was examined for psychological assessment and the report reflected that he was an old case of Acute Psychosis (Stress induced) and keeping in view the nature and past history of Acute psychosis (Stress induced) which is known to cause relapses under stress and the recent psychometric analysis report suggesting presence of anxiety in the patient and the inherent stress and strains of service as a combatant in armed forces with easy accessibility and need of handling of firearms and ammunition in service as a combatant in armed forces. The Review Medical Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit for service as a combatant role in Page No.# 4/7 armed forces and consequently, his case for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF was not considered and rejected upon mental grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly selected in the selection process and was given the appointment letter. He had completed about 4 (four) months of training when he was considered to be unfit and was accordingly discharged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is otherwise a qualified individual with additional qualifications and is therefore fit to hold any post that does not require combatant duties or training. It is submitted that the petitioner also holds other diplomas like diploma in typing etc and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is competent to hold the post of clerk/LDA etc. which the respondents are required to consider and appoint him accordingly. Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner having been duly selected for the post of Constable, merely because of the medical condition reflected in the opinion of the Medical Board, which suggests that the petitioner is unfit for combatant duty, he cannot be discharged without being considered for alternative duties that do not involve combatant roles. 4. Ms A Gayan, learned CGC, on the other hand, strongly disputes the Page No.# 5/7 contentions raised by the writ petitioner. She relies on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force is considered to be an Armed Force and its duty is to maintain law and order and internal security, counter insurgency operations across the Union of India wherever the need arises. Therefore, all posts in the CRPF are combatised for every member, irrespective of the cadre, as such, all personnel are required to undergo basic training, which includes running, exercises and handling of firearms. It is submitted that since the petitioner was found unfit for basic training, his prayer for being considered for appointment to a non-combatant post cannot be accepted as all personnel in all cadres of Armed Forces require the basic training. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings on record have been carefully perused. 6. The petitioner has not questioned the medical findings of the Psychiatry Department of GMCH or the Review Medical Board. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not suffering from the ailment stated to have been suffered from or that the findings of the GMCH or Review Medical Board are not correct. The only prayer before the Court is that since the petitioner was recruited by following proper procedure into the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF and he Page No.# 6/7 has also attended/completed 4 (four) months of training after which he was discharged from his service because of the medical reason, his case ought to have been considered for appointment in any other post which does not have a combatant role. The respondents have categorically stated in their affidavit that all posts in the CRPF are required to undergo basic training including handling of arms. Discharging the petitioner from service at the time when he was under basic training was due to the reports of the Medical Specialists as well as the Medical Board which clearly reflected that he is an old case of “Acute Psychosis” which has tendency to relapse in phase of stress. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer made by the petitioner. The prayer for considering the petitioner in any other post in the CRPF which does not require combatant duty cannot be considered in view of the specific provisions in the CRPF Rules that basic training including handling of arms is necessary for all posts and all cadres of CRPF. The writ petition therefore stands closed. It is, however, made clear that closure of the writ petition shall not foreclose the right of the petitioner to apply for fresh selection and appointment for any job and participating in any recruitment process including recruitments undertaken by the Central or the State Government, if, he is otherwise found to be suitable for participating in the selection process of such recruitments to be called for. The medical reports Page No.# 7/7 given by the Composite Hospital, GC, CRPF and other specialists shall not operate as a bar for the petitioner to appear in any such recruitment process that he may be wish to participate subject to fulfilling all the requirements. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands closed. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant