JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is being aggrieved by the report of the Review Medical Examination Board, whereby the petitioner was held unfit due to presence of hesitation cut mark on his left forearm. In response to the recruitment notice dated 05.09.2024, petitioner participated in the recruitment drive for the post of Constable GD in CAPFs. After qualifying in the written Computer Based Examination, the petitioner appeared for the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test and succeeded the same. Thereafter, he was presented for medical examination. In the Detailed Medical Examination, which was held on 05.12.2025, he was declared unfit due to presence of “hesitation cut mark on left forearm”. Thereafter, he was again re- examined by the Review Medical Board - 2 on 09.12.2025 and the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination Board (DME) were sustained and the Review Medical Board considered him unfit on the ground of presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm. 3. The petitioner thereafter, presented himself before the Gauhati Medical College and was examined by the Department of Dermatology and the dermatological report indicates that the patient namely the writ petitioner did not have any active skin disease at present therefore, he is fit from the dermatology side. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the rejection of the writ petitioner by the authorities was incorrect and therefore, calls for interference. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that in terms of the Guidelines for medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, May 2015 one of the grounds for rejection is the presence of hesitation cut mark. There is no dispute that in both the medical examination, namely DME and RME the finding was the same that there was a presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm. 6. The matter was heard and on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be disposed of in similar directions in terms of the order passed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6231 of 2024, the matter was taken up for disposal. 6. The matter was heard and on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be disposed of in similar directions in terms of the order passed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6231 of 2024, the matter was taken up for disposal. Later when the order was dictated, it was seen that the facts in this particular case are different from the facts and circumstances of the writ petition in which the order was passed vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6231 of 2024. Under such circumstances, the matter was listed for hearing. 7. Today when the matter is heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to persuade the Court that the matter be remanded back for reconsideration by placing the petitioner before the appropriate department in the Government Hospital, namely the Department of Psychiatry, to evaluate the petitioner as to whether he suffers from any mental illness. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was produced before the Department of Psychiatry and subsequently the department was requested to present the petitioner on a subsequent date before the Department of Psychiatry, GMCH. However, the respondent department did not produce the petitioner before the Department of Psychiatry. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the matter ought to be remanded back for a fresh consideration after proper evaluation by the Department of Psychiatry, GMCH. 9. The guidelines clearly provide the ground for rejection as presence of hesitation cut mark is one of the ground for rejection. In the medical reports of the DME and the RME the petitioner has been rejected or declared unfit on the grounds of presence of hesitation cut marks on the left forearm. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the guidelines provide for rejection. 11. Perusal of the writ petition does not reveal that there is any denial by the petitioner in respect of the conclusions and the findings arrived at by the DME and RME. The petitioner has not disputed the presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm of the petitioner. From the medical report placed before the Court, it is also seen that the petitioner did not divulge the history leading to the hesitation cut mark on his left forearm. The petitioner has not disputed the presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm of the petitioner. From the medical report placed before the Court, it is also seen that the petitioner did not divulge the history leading to the hesitation cut mark on his left forearm. Under such circumstances the RME concluded that although, psychiatric evaluation is normal that time, hesitation cuts marks indicates past self harm behaviour. The medical literature for hesitation cuts on non suicidal, self-injury indicates an increased rate of recurrence of self harm in future. Also, duties in Armed Forces requires high level of sound mental health and resilience in view of high level of stress during duties required for thwarting security threats to the country which involves extreme physical strains, deprived sleep, odd timings of food, high emotional pressure. During the stressful environment, there has high chances of nervous breakdown leading to self harm or harm to others. Considering the safety of individual and safety of others, the petitioner cannot be inducted into such stressful environment. Hence, he was declared unfit. 12. In view of the above discussion and in view of the guidelines specifically providing that the hesitation cut mark is one of the grounds to be declared unfit during the process of selection. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the DME and RME. 13. In this context a reference the order of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India & Ors. vs. Koushik Paul in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 738- 741/2022 clearly held that once the DME and RME has rejected the conclusions ordinarily no interference is called for. 14. The relevant part of the order is extracted below: “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. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 15. In view of all the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 16. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any also dismissed.