Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264812025 2026:GAU-AS:1608 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6966/2025 HAZRAT ALI S/O-TAZ UDDIN, VILLAGE-BASHBARI NO.5, P.O.-MANIKPUR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, 783392 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KARTAVYA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-3 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BLOCK NO-1 C.G.O. COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110003. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE DIRECTORATE GENERAL BLOCK 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE DIRECTORATE GENERAL BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX Page No.# 2/4 LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL EAST BLOCK 5 R.K.PURAM SECTOR-1 NEW DELHI-110066 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE DIRECTORATE GENERAL BLOCK 2 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU WEST BLOCK NO.1 WING NO.5 R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI - 110066 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES DGAR ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA 793010 9:THE CHAIRMAN STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BLOCK NO-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110003 10:COMMANDANT /CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER RME BOARD-2 DV/DME/RME-CTGD EXAM2025 CENTRE-CAPFS CH BSF PATGAON GUWAHATI 11:ASSISTANT COMMANDANT/MEDICAL OFFICER (AC/MO) DV/DME/RME-CT(GD) EXAM-2025 CENTRE-CAPFS CH BSF PATGAON Page No.# 3/4 GUWAHAT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, CGC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 06.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature in the recruitment process initiated vide Notice dated 05.09.2024 on the ground that he was declared unfit on account of being overweight. 3. It is pertinent to take note of that in the Detailed Medical Examination which was carried out on 18.11.2025, the petitioner was found to be overweight by 12 kg. Thereupon, the Petitioner sought for a review and in the Review Medical Examination also he was found to be overweight, inasmuch as his weight was measured at 71.5 Kg, his height at 166 cm and his BMI was found above the normal range. It was opined that the Petitioner was overweight by 12 Kg. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that there was no weight measured. Mechanically, the Petitioner was held to be overweight. 4. It is noticed that when the matter was listed before this Court on 10.12.2025, the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2025. On 17.12.2025, when the matter was listed, Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC appearing on Page No.# 4/4 behalf of the Respondents sought an accommodation and accordingly, the matter has been listed before this Court today. 5. Today, Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has produced a pen drive before this Court, wherein a video shows that the Petitioner’s weight is 72.5 kg. The said pen drive is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 6. This Court has seen the video produced by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC and the allegation so made that there was no weight measurement taken is absolutely false. 7. It is not a matter of rocket science as regards the measurement of a person’s weight. Both the Detailed Medical Examination and the Review Medical Examination categorically held that the Petitioner was overweight. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find the instant writ petition to be a fit case for entertaining. 8. This Court has also perused the contents of the writ petition and finds that there is no allegation therein that the weighing devices used both in the Detailed Medical Examination as well as in the Review Medical Examination had any fault. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant