JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court had submitted his candidature in response to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authority for appointment in the post of Constable (GD) under the Central Armed Police Forces. The petitioner had successfully cleared the written test and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST). However, on medical examination by the DME i.e. the Detailed Medical Examination undertaken by the BSF authorities, the writ petitioner was declared unfit due to “infected wart left ear lobule”. This report was issued on 25.11.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was medically evaluated by a private hospital namely Hayat Hospital, by the BSF, where the medical advice was rendered to take an opinion from a Dermatologist. Consequently, the Dermatological opinion was undertaken from the Apollo Clinic from Dr. Arun Agarwal, MD, where the Dermatologist given an opinion “fit for job”. Notwithstanding that, the Review Medical Examination Board sustained the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination and considered the petitioner unfit because of infected wart on the left ear lobule. The said report was issued on 29.11.2025. The final opinion in the Review Medical Examination Board-I’s report was that he was considered unfit due to infected wound on the left ear lobule. Although, the antibiotics are prescribed, the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted, hence he was found to be not acceptable. 3. The petitioner approached this Court challenging his said rejection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this ground for rejection is not specified in the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in CRPF which was circulated by the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021. 4. The respondents have contested the case by filing their affidavit. In their affidavit it is stated that since there was an infection on the “left ear lobule” and the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted, therefore, petitioner's case was rejected. 5. It is submitted by the learned CGC that there is no infirmity in the rejection as the same was done as per the procedure prescribed. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 7. The revised guidelines for the medical examination have been carefully perused. 5. It is submitted by the learned CGC that there is no infirmity in the rejection as the same was done as per the procedure prescribed. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 7. The revised guidelines for the medical examination have been carefully perused. The guidelines which have been placed before the Court also did not reflect specifically the instances under which the cases like the petitioner can be considered to be unfit and unsuitable for recruitment. What is seen from the pleadings is that there is an independent medical opinion by a dermatologist from the Apollo Clinic where antibiotics have been prescribed and there is an opinion that he is fit for job. 8. In view of this independent opinion it is seen that there are contradictory opinions rendered by the civilian doctors and the doctors of the Medical Board by the BSF authorities. 9. The only ground for rejection of the petitioner is that the outcome of the treatment prescribed on the date of examination cannot be predicted and therefore, the petitioner was declared to be unfit. 10. During the course of the hearing the learned CGC has referred to the guidelines more particularly the clause No. XII (B)(7) to submit that such guidelines do provide certain situations under which cases like the writ petitioner are to be rejected during the Medical Examination. The said clause reads as under: “ 7. Localized types of fungus infections which is extensive, interfering with the proper wearing of combatised equipment or the performance of combatised duties, are disqualifying.” 11. From the materials available before this Court it is seen that the only ground on which the Review Medical Examination Board rejected the case of the petitioner was that the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted. This Court is of the view that the reference to Clause No. XII(B)(7) by the learned CGC would require a specific finding by the Medical Board that the petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of the said clause and that the infection(s) in extensive interfering with the proper wearing of combatised equipment or in the performance of combatised duties. No such finding is discernible from the Medical Report. As discussed above, the only ground for rejection is that the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted. No such finding is discernible from the Medical Report. As discussed above, the only ground for rejection is that the outcome of the treatment cannot be predicted. It is possible that pursuant to the treatment being undertaken by the petitioner the infection may have been arrested. 12. In that view of the matter and also in view of the fact that contradictory medical opinions are placed, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is permitted to file a detailed representation before the Review Medical Examination Board (respondent No.6) within a period of 1 week from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order thereafter, the Review Medical Examination Board will reconsider the case of the petitioner and re- examine the petitioner with regard to the infection stated to have been suffered by him. Necessary arrangements for presence of the concerned specialists namely ENT and/or Dermatologist, if required, should also be made. Alternatively, the Review Medical Examination Board can also get an opinion from the specialists namely ENT and/or Dermatologist from the civilian hospitals in respect of the nature and the gravity of deficiency, if any suffered and/or the infection stated to have been suffered by the petitioner. 13. Upon such examination the Review Medical Examination Board will pass its opinion afresh within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation and thereafter, if it is found that there is no deficiency of the petitioner, the consequential orders for appointment may be issued by the respondent authorities. 14. With the above observations this matter stands closed. 15. Since an interim order was passed by the Court on 07.01.2026, till such time the Review Medical Examination Board re-examines the petitioner as directed above and render’s it’s opinion the interim order will remain in force.