1 2026:CGHC:4926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14142 of 2025 1 - Dhanendra S/o Takeshwar Aged About 26 Years R/o 265, Ward No.07, Bajrang Chowk, Village- Kareli Badi District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Personnel Public Grievances And Pensions Department Of Personnel And Training Staff Selection Commission Block No. 12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003, 2 - Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment Branch) East Block- 07, Level- 04, R.K. Puram New Delhi- 110066. 3 - Senior Commandant Group Centre CRPF Bilaspur Camp Bharmi District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate with Ms. Mitisha Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI with Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 29/01/2026 1. Petitioners have filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 0.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondents in the interest of justice. 2 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the medical unfitness declared by the respondents in the Review Medical Examination conducted on 18/11/2025. 10.3 Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh, fair, transparent, and properly supervised Review Medical Examination of the petitioner at a Government Medical College/Hospital, Composite CAPF Hospital, or any other Government-approved medical institution, strictly in accordance with the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. dated 04.05.2021. 10.4 Direct the respondents to consider the AIIMS Raipur medical report dated 24-25/11/2025 while assessing the petitioner's medical fitness. 10.5 Direct to the respondents decide the petitioner's representation dated 27/11/2025 within a time-bound manner. 10.6 Pass any other relief(s) or direction(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, particularly keeping in view that this is the petitioner's last opportunity to fulfill his dream of becoming a member of the Defence Forces.,” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) to be deputed in BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, SSF and Rifleman (General Duty in Assam Rifles. Petitioner submitted an application for appointment on the post of Constable. During process of recruitment, petitioner has to undergo his medical examination. Upon detailed medical examination, petitioner was held to be unfit on the ground of Hypertension vide Annexure P-3. Petitioner thereafter has submitted an application for review medical examination on 18.11.2025, before 3 the authorities and accordingly petitioner was sent for review medical examination by the board constituted by the respondents-authorities. He contended that upon his examination by the Medical Board, hypertension and blood pressure was found in normal level, but he has been declared unfit due to deranged LFT levels mentioning as Bilirubin to be 3.26 Mg/d. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that medical examination by the Medical Board was on 21.11.2025. The blood test was conducted by the private pathology lab having tie-up with the Arpa Medcity Hospital & Research Institute, Bilaspur, and therefore, considering that report of the said hospital may not be correct, petitioner got himself examined by the All India Institute of Medical Science Raipur (AIIMS) on 24.11.2025 within few days and in the report of investigation liver function test is reported to be within normal range, therefore, the respondents authorities be directed to keep the candidature of petitioner for further consideration in the recruitment proceedings along with other candidates treating him to be fit for employment on the post of Constable. He also made submission that according to the Rules, which is enclosed by the respondents along with reply, guidelines for review of the Medical Board, there is specific clause that wherever the candidates, who have been found to be unfit due to hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate’s fitness or otherwise. The petitioner was not hospitalized at any point of time, therefore, the respondents have not followed the procedure as provided under the guidelines for Review Medical Board. He lastly contended that during medical examination, petitioner was declared unfit due to hypertension and therefore, the 4 Review Medical Board could have examined for that unfitness only. Review Medical Board could not have examined petitioner for any other purpose and test. The Review Medical Board has declared the petitioner unfit for other new reason, which is not permissible. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharmvir Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., in Writ Petition (S) (Civil) No. 444 of 2019 decided on 19.07.2019. 3. Learned counsel for respondents would vehemently oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner participated in the recruitment proceedings along with all eligible candidates at that relevant point of time for appointment on the post of Constable (GD), all the candidates have to undergo medical test to assess their fitness to be appointed on the said post accordingly petitioner was initially examined in detail by the doctor in due course according to conditions as provided in the service rules/advertisement and doctor, who examined petitioner declared petitioner to be unfit due to hypertension. According to application submitted by petitioner for his review medical examination, petitioner was sent for review medical examination before the Review Medical Board. Petitioner was thereafter admitted according to the guidelines and again tests have been conducted. He also contended that as petitioner was being examined by the Review Medical Board, other test have also been conducted including blood test in which liver function test of petitioner has been found to be deranged, therefore, petitioner was found unfit. It is further submitted that at Bilaspur, respondents authorities are having the group Center Hospital and not 5 big a hospital, therefore, respondents have tie-up with the Arpa Medcity Hospital and Research Institute, Bilaspur where all the facilities for test etc. are available. Accordingly petitioner’s test was conducted at Arpa Medcity Hospital & Research Institute i.e. blood test and other test as mentioned in Annexure P-4 and in the report of liver function test, total Bilirubin was found 3.26 mg/d, whereas biological reference range is mentioned in the same document as 0.1 – 1.2. He contended that according to the norms of respondents, the candidates used to be posted and treated to be fit under the liver function test, report should be within the range as per the norms under the biological reference range as mentioned therein. He also submits that in the documents, which is relied upon by counsel for petitioner I,e, report of AIIMS, Raipur also total Bilirubin is found as 1.26, which is above biological reference range. In the aforementioned facts of the case, even otherwise petitioner liver function test is not within the biological reference range, therefore, also no relief as prayed for can be granted. He next contended that submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was not admitted in the hospital at the time of his examination by Review Medical Board is not correct. Respondents in the Group Center for Hospital used to maintained two registers i.e. OPD register and Detention Register. Detention Register means the person who has been detained in the hospital or admitted in the hospital for the investigation or any treatment. In the detention register maintained by respondent authorities, petitioner has been shown to be detained on 19.11.2025, his name is also mentioned along with other persons who has been detained on 19.11.2025 or prior or further 6 dates. Original Detention register as also the OPD register is placed before this Court for perusal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the advertisement published on the website of the Commission/respondents on 24.11.2023. Procedure and conditions of recruitment is also forming part of the notice/advertisement Online. Clause 12 provides for scheme of examination i.e. computer based examination of General Intelligence and Reasoning, General Knowledge and General Awareness, Elementary Mathematics and English and Hindi. Candidates thereafter has to undergo Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and minimum requirements for becoming successful is also prescribed therein. Clause 12.6 provides for medical examination, which mentions that candidates will be shortlisted for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) from the pool of candidates who qualify Physical Standard Test /Physical Efficiency Test. Accordingly, petitioner was medically examined on 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) by the doctor. Upon examination, doctor has issued certificate in Form-01 holding petitioner to be unfit due to hypertension. Perusal of Annexure P-3 would further show that petitioner in the prescribed formate has submitted an application for his review medical examination, which was accepted and petitioner was sent for review medical examination before the Review Medical Board. 7 6. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II) had issued guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles i.e. revised guideline as on May, 2015. By office memorandum Government of India/Bharat Sarkar has issued an office memorandum under the head of “Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles For Gos, & NGOs : Amendment thereof. 7. Relevant portion of Clause 3 of the Guidelines for Review Medical Board under the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles revised as on May 2015 is extracted below for ready reference :- 3. Few examples are being cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board a) In any cardiac case like valvular defects ECG/Echocardiogram must be carried out. b) In cases of suspected lesions of chest like Hilar lymphadenitis, calcified spots, Koch's infiltrations, any mass detected in X-Ray chest etc CT Chest should be carried out. c) For vascular defects like Varicose vein, vascular malformations etc Colour Doppler should be carried out d) To rule out any eye surgery like Lasik/LASEK/PRK/PK/Glaucoma/Squint/Pterygium Surgery etc. investigations may be carried out accordingly, viz. slit lamp examination/ophthalmoscopy/Corneal Topography/ OCT/ HVF / Tonometry/VEP/ERG /Synoptophore etc. should be carried out. 8 e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electro- cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S.creatinineetc, tests should also be carried out. f) For any suspected case of CAD, TMT test should be conducted g) Any tremor in hands or other parts of body thyrotoxicosis should be ruled out and neurologist's opinion should be taken. h) For suspected Diabetes Mellitus cases GGT and Glycosylated Hb. test should be carried out. i) For Knock knee, bow leg, cubitus valgus and varus deformities, X-Ray plate with findings should be attached. j) For any type of deafness, audiometry should be carried out. k) For a case of dental points less than 14, OPG should be carried out.” 8. Revised Guidelines of 2021 provides guidelines for Review of Medical Examination (RME) under Clause-6, which is extracted below for ready reference :- “6. Guidelines for Review Medical Boards:- (a) Review Medical Board shall examine the candidate specifically for the deficiency for which the candidate has been declared unfit. [Also, the medical term used 9 as cause of unfitness during the Initial Medical Examination may differ from that arrived at by the Review Medical Board]. (b) It will be ensured that the Medical Officer who has conducted DME of a candidate is not part of the RME Board for the same candidate. (c) The defect for which candidate has been declared unfit should be examined thoroughly and the findings must be supported by proper investigation reports, if applicable. (d) Review Medical Board may obtain opinion of concerned specialists or super specialists of Govt. Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt. Therefore, in cases of rejection In review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of speciallsts/ super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centers, whichever and wherever applicable. 9. In revised guidelines, which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner and filed along with writ petition shows that earlier guidelines for Review Medical Board has been replaced by Guidelines for Review Medical Examination (RME) in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles forming part of the guidelines as Annexure A. 10. In this guidelines also, Clause-6 talks of Guidelines for Review Medical Board and Clause 7-E provides for candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final pinion regarding the candidate’s fitness or otherwise. Further it provides that in all such cases X-ray and electrocardiographic examinations of heart 10 and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc. tests should also be carried out. 11. From the aforementioned guidelines relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner as also by respondent one thing is common that if the doctor, who has conducted examination of candidate participating in the recruitment proceedings declared a candidate to be unfit on the ground of hypertension then in review medical examination, he has to undergo many other test which is consequential in nature and in the case at hand also the Review Medical Board has conducted the the tests as as has been provided under the guideline, therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondents could have assessed the suitability/fitness of petitioner only with reference to hypertension, in the opinion of this Court, is not correct. 12. Guidelines itself in very clear and specific terms provides for several other test including the blood test and creatinine. As submitted by learned counsel for respondents that Bilirubin test as provided under the guidelines, one test got conducted by Review Medical Board and the other petitioner got himself examined before the AIIMS, Raipur would show that total Bilirubin range which is mentioned in both the tests is above than the biological reference range. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the test conducted by respondents through Review Medical Board to be incorrect in view of the test conducted by him in the AIIMS, Raipur and as per report of AIIMS, Raipur petitioner 11 is fit, is not sustainable as in both the report the total Bilirubin is exceeding the biological reference range. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case I do not find present to be a fit case to grant a relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram