Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010034502026 2026:GAU-AS:11971 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/298/2026 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVTERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2: THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN / SECRETARY BLOCK- 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3: THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NER STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE RUKMININAGAR POST OFFICE- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI- 781006. 4: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO-10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI-03. 5: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003. Page No.# 2/6 6: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 7: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011. 8: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 9: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHASASTRA SEEMA BAL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K PURAM NEW DELHI-2 -VERSUS- MOUSUMI DEVI DAUGHTER OF- UMESH TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANANDA PUR, POST OFFICE -NITYANANDA, POLICE STATION-PATACHARKUCHI, DISTRICT- BAJALI, ASSAM, PIN-781329. For the appellants : Ms. B. Sarma, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. B.M. Deka, Advocate Page No.# 3/6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 21-08-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants/Union of India & others and Mr. B.M. Deka, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/Union of India and eight others have challenged the judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 6155/2024 remanding the matter to the authorities to give a re-look at the opinion given by the Review Medical Board as also by the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) and take a decision as to whether the respondent would be clinically fit to be appointed to the post of Constable (G.D.). 3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 24.11.2023 floated by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to the post of Constable (G.D) in the Central Armed Police Forces, the respondent had applied, the examination for which was to be conducted in 2024. The respondent cleared the computer-based test as also the Physical Standard and Physical Efficiency Test. However, during the subsequent Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination[H1] [H2] held on 07.11.2024 and 12.11.2024, respectively, she was declared unfit on the ground of her having Morton’s Toe (bilateral Morton’s Toe). 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent underwent an examination in the Page No.# 4/6 Orthopaedic Department of GMCH, which declared that although the respondent had Morton’s Toe, but was clinically fit. 5. Relying on this so-called contrary medical opinion given by the GMCH, a writ petition was filed by the respondent seeking quashing of the afore-noted two medical findings, i.e. the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review Medical Examination, which had declared her unfit, and praying for a direction to the authorities to constitute a fresh medical board comprising specialist doctors to reconcile the conflicting opinions. 6. The contention on behalf of the appellants/Union of India before the learned Single Judge was that under the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in the Central Armed Police Forces as also the Ministry of Home Affairs, only one review medical examination is permitted and the decision of such Review Medical Board would be final. The normal rule, the appellants contend, is that the decision of the Review Medical Board should be treated as final. 7. However, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to approach the competent authority within two weeks of the passing of the order, by filing a representation, supported by all relevant medical documents, including the report of any test done at GMCH. It was further directed that if those opinions were found to be based on proper tests and examinations, the authorities ought to reconstitute the Review Medical Board for re-examination of the respondent by including, if so advised and found necessary, civilian specialists. 8. The representation, as directed by the learned Single Judge, has Page No.# 5/6 already been filed by the respondent, but, in the meantime, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel submits that such remand and direction to constitute another Review Medical Board on the basis of an opinion given by the GMCH was not necessary, more so, when the opinion of the GMCH was given at the instance of the respondent. That apart, Ms. Sarma submits that even the GMCH report has not denied that the respondent has Morton’s Toe, but has only opined that she is clinically fit. It is also submitted that according to the guidelines, the opinion certifying the level of clinical fitness for being appointed to the post of Constable (General Duty) is to be given by the authorities. It has further been argued that since as per the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination, one Review Medical Board’s decision is good enough and that such decision should be taken as final, any direction for a further medical board was not necessary. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once a direction was issued for reconstituting a Review Medical Board to take a decision with regard to so-called conflicting opinions, there is no reason as to why the same need not be followed. It is open for the authorities to take a decision according to its own policy, but questioning the direction for remand is uncalled for. 11. With this reasoning, we find that this appeal lacks merit. 12. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with the direction that after Page No.# 6/6 constitution of the Review Medical Board, as directed by the learned Single Judge, a decision shall be taken regarding the clinical fitness of the respondent for being appointed as Constable (G.D.) and such decision shall be communicated to the respondent forthwith. 13. The whole exercise must be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant