Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036782026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/563/2026 RANJUMALA DEVI DO GOBIN CHOUHAN, RO VILL TARALANGSHU 3 NO KAKI 6 NO GAON, PO LANKA, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN NO 782446, ROLL NO 5105077864 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 1 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT) EAST BLOCK 07 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI 66 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENRAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI 23 5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 Page No.# 2/3 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GHY 23 6:THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GHY 2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 06.03.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the opposite party/respondents. 2. It is submitted that while delivering the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.683/2026 there was a discrepancy in the particulars of the Review Medical Examination Board. In the said order at paragraph No.2 it was referred as: “2. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered in the Review Medical Examination Board-I Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Board-1, RME-CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs CH BSF, Patgaon, Guwahati, wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that instead of the “Review Medical Examination Board-I Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Page No.# 3/3 Board-1, RME-CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs CH BSF, Patgaon, Guwahati” as specified in paragraph No.2 of the said order the correct term ought to have been as “Review Medical Examination Board Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Board, RME-CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs GC CRPF, Amerigog, Guwahati”. 4. This error could not be pointed out at the time when the order was dictated purely due to an inadvertent oversight. 5. The learned counsel for respondents does not object to the prayer made for correction in the said order. 6. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed. The order dated 09.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.683/2026 wherever the reference of “Review Medical Examination Board-I Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Board-1, RME- CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs CH BSF, Patgaon, Guwahati” is specified it shall be read as “Review Medical Examination Board Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Board, RME-CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs GC CRPF, Amerigog, Guwahati”. The order dated 09.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.683/2026 shall be read together with the order passed today in this interlocutory application. 7. Copy of this order be retained in the case record of WP(C) No.683/2026. 8. Copy of this order be also brought to the notice of the Registry. 9. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant