Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010265512025 2026:GAU-AS:12830 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6922/2025 JADIDUL HUSSAIN S/O- JAKIR HUSSAIN, VILL- BARBARI, P.O.- SARUPETA, P.S- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST- BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R. K .PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. Page No.# 2/10 5:THE PRESIDING OFFICER CT/GD RECRUITMENT EXAM 2025 RECRUITMENT BOARD CRPF GUWAHATI AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM-781023. 6:THE PRESIDING OFFICER REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD-2 CT/GD EXAM-2025 CENTRE-CAPFS CH BSF PATGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR S PRODHANI,R. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH(C.G.C),MRS S BARUAH(C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the rejection of his case for recruitment against the post of Constable (General Duty), in the Central Assam Police Forces (CAPFs), by the Detailed Medical Examination Board as well as by the Review Medical Examination Board, on the ground that the petitioner was unfit for recruitment to the Forces due to presence of hesitation cut marks on his left Page No.# 3/10 forearm. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has projected that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 05.09.2024, issued towards inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (General Duty), in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau, he had submitted his application, complete in all respects. The petitioner projects that he had successfully completed the Computer Based Examination, and thereafter, participated in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET), which were held on 20.08.2025. The petitioner contends to have cleared the said segments of the selection process. The petitioner, as directed thereafter, appeared before the constituted Board for undergoing a Detailed Medical Examination on 13.11.2025. The Board conducting the Detailed Medical Examination, on examining the petitioner found him to be unfit for recruitment to the services involved on account of existence of hesitation cut marks on his left forearm. The petitioner being aggrieved by the findings given during his Detailed Medical Examination, applied for his case to be considered by a Review Medical Examination Board. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the constituted Review Medical Examination Board. It is projected that the said Board upon Page No.# 4/10 evaluation of the petitioner by a Psychiatrist, although having found him to be normal at that time, proceeded to draw a conclusion to the effect that the hesitation cut marks in his left forearm indicated his past self harm behavior. Accordingly, basing on the said conclusion, the petitioner was held to be not suitable for being recruited to the Forces involved and accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be unfit by the Review Medical Examination Board. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner on his examination by the Doctors at the Psychiatry Department of the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMC&H), on 20.11.2025, was found to be not suffering from any psychopathology as of then. 4.1. Mr. A. M. Khan, submits that the petitioner prior to submitting his application for recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024, had already acquired his graduation in Science with honours in Zoology in the year 2023, from Bodoland University, which was contended to reveal that the petitioner was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder. 4.2. Mr. A. M. Khan, submits that the petitioner had never Page No.# 5/10 undergone any treatment for issues relating to psychiatry disorder. The petitioner being found to be normal with no psychiatric ailment suffered by him, the Review Medical Examination Board, merely on account of the existence of hesitation cut marks on his left forearm, could not have held the petitioner to be unfit for recruitment to the Forces involved. 4.3. In the above premises, Mr. A. M. Khan, prays that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for carrying out a fresh Review Medical Examination, of the petitioner and, therein, consider the opinion given by the Doctor, examining him in the Department of Psychiatry, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMC&H). 5. Per contra, Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner on his case being held to be unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination, on account of his hesitation cut marks, being found on his left forearm, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to apply for a Review Medical Examination. The petitioner having availed the said opportunity and was examined by the Review Medical Examination Board on 17.11.2025, the petitioner was referred to the GMCH, Guwahati, for consultation with the Psychiatry Department, therein, and the Psychiatrist examining the petitioner had opined that the petitioner did not suffer from any psychiatric ailment at that time of his examination. Ms. Baruah, submits that the Review Medical Examination Page No.# 6/10 Board, had considered the opinion rendered by the Psychiatrist, however, had further opined that the hesitation cut marks on his left forearm, indicated his past self harm behavior. Accordingly, considering the nature of duties that would require to be rendered by the petitioner in the Armed Forces, the stressful environment that the enrolled member would have to face, along with other circumstances involved, which has a high chance of nervous break down, leading to causing of self harm or harm to others, the Medical Examination Board, proceeded to hold the petitioner unfit for recruitment to the Armed Forces. 5.1. Ms. S. Baruah, submits that perusal of the report of the Review Medical Examination Board, would go to reveal that the said Board had considered all relevant aspect before arriving at its conclusion that the petitioner was not meeting the physical/health eligibility requirement for the CAPFs. 5.2. Ms. S. Baruah, further submits that the Medical Officers constituting the Review Medical Examination Board, are well experienced and aware about the physical standard required to be met by a candidate, as per the functional requirement of the CAPFs and that the civil Doctors, although being experts in their field of profession, are not aware about the nature of deployment, conditions of service and the requirement of physical standard to be maintained by a member of Central Armed Police Forces Page No.# 7/10 (CAPFs). 5.3. Ms. S. Baruah, further submits that under the guidelines holding the field, it is provided that, in the event, any candidate is found to have hesitation cut marks on his body, the same would constitute a ground for rejection of his candidature. 5.4. In view of the above premises, Ms. S. Baruah, submits that the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board, in respect of the petitioner, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was held to be unfit for recruitment into the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), on the ground that he had hesitation cut marks on his left forearm. The said disability of the petitioner was detected both during his Detailed Medical Examination as well as during his Review Medical Examination. 8. As noticed, hereinabove, on a psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner, he was found to be normal, at that time of his medical examination. However, on account of the presence of hesitation marks on his left forearm, which had indicated self harm behavior in the past, the Review Medical Examination Board, proceeded to hold the petitioner unfit Page No.# 8/10 by drawing the following conclusions; “Examined multiple hesitation cuts seen on left forearm. Although, psychiatric evaluation is normal at present, hesitation cuts indicate past self harm behaviour. Published medical literature for hesitation cuts on non-suicidal self injury, mentions increased rate of recurrence of self harm in future. Also, duties in Armed Forces required 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 strain, deprived sleep, odd timings of food, high emotional pressures. During the stressful environment individual has high chances of nervous breakdown leading to self harm of harm to others. Considering safety of individual and safety of others, individual cannot be inducted into such stressful environment. Hence, individual declared Unfit". 9. On a perusal of the conclusion drawn by the Review Medical Examination Board, this Court finds that the said Board had taken all aspects of the matter into consideration, before proceeding to declare the petitioner to be unfit for recruitment into Armed Forces. The petitioner being held to be unfit for recruitment into Armed Forces both during his Detailed Medical Examination as well as Review Medical Examination, on the ground that the hesitation cut marks were found on his left forearm, this Court finds that the petitioner in the present writ petition has not denied the existence of such hesitation cut marks on his left forearm and/or given an explanation as to how the said cut marks had occasioned on his left forearm. From the materials brought on record, this Court further does not find that the petitioner during his medical examination, had divulged the history leading to the formation of hesitation cut marks on his left forearm. Page No.# 9/10 10. Considering the necessity of a high level of sound mental health and resilience in view of high level of stress encountered by an enrolled member during discharge of his duties in the Armed Forces, which also involves extreme physical strains, sleep deprivation, odd timing of food intake, high emotional pressure, there being a high chance of a nervous break down leading to self harm or harm to others, this Court is of the considered view that the Review Medical Examination Board, after having considered the said aspect of the matter, held the petitioner to be unfit, cannot be permitted to be now projected by the petitioner to be perverse, when the existence of such hesitation cut marks on his left forearm, is not disputed by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this Court holds that the conclusions reached during the Detailed Medical Examination of the petitioner as well as the conclusions reached by the Review Medical Examination Board, qua the petitioner, to be not erroneous and accordingly, to mandate no interference. 12. At his stage, this Court would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Koushik Paul in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 738-741/2022, wherein, clearly held that once the Detailed Medical Examination Board (DME) and Review Medical Examination Board (RME), has rejected the candidature of a candidate, ordinarily no interference is called for. Page No.# 10/10 13. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Koushik Paul (supra), being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow: "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 application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant