11 rkd 22.01.2026 Ct.02 W.P.A. 296 of 2026 Subho Ghosh -vs- Union of India & Ors. Mr. Debasish Kundu, Ms. Arpita Kundu ….for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, Mr. Subhajit Das ….for the Union of India. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner participated in the selection process for being appointed as Constable (GD) under Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). 3. Petitioner qualified in written test and Physical Standard test but in Review Medical Examination petitioner was declared unfit on 6th December, 2025 on the ground of less dental points (12) and deformity of bilateral 3rd, 4th and 5th toes. 4. According to the petitioner said Review Medical Report dated 6th December, 2025 is not correct as petitioner has obtained a certificate on 20th December, 2025 from Block Medical Officer of Health, Block Primary Health Centre. 5. On perusal of such certificate issued by Block Medical Officer of Health on 20th December, 2025 it transpires on subjective satisfaction petitioner was declared fit without addressing issues as raised in Review Medical Report dated 6th December, 2025. 6. Such medical certificate dated 20th December, 2025 ought not to be relied upon in deciding fitness of the candidate. The certificate of Dentist dated 19th December, 2025 is confined to a deformity which was indicated in the Review Medical Report dated 6th December, 2025 i.e. less dental point (12). 7. However, there is no explanation as to why petitioner shall be declared medically fit in view of second deformity as pointed out in Review Medical Report dated 6th December, 2025 which relates to bilateral 3rd, 4th and 5th toes. 8. It is alluded above that there is no specific positive findings made by the Block Medical Officer of Health in his report dated 20th December, 2025 relating to deformity of bilateral 3rd, 4th and 5th toes. 9. Hence, Court has to decide based on Review Medical Report dated 6th December, 2025. 10. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. The writ petition stands dismissed. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2