Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010275752025 2026:GAU-AS:142 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7242/2025 SANIDUL ISLAM S/O SHAJAHAN ALI , VILL-PURBALUWASHUR , P.O MAJGAON, P.S BARPETA DIST BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL 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 GUWAHATI06. 4:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF RECRUITMENT BRANCH EAST BLOCK07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K.PURAM Page No.# 2/5 NEW DELHI-110066. 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 781023 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. AM Khan Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. SS Roy CGC Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 06.01.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced Page No.# 3/5 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. AM Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. SS Roy, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ proceedings is filed challenging the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board-2 of the Centre- CAPFs, CH BSF, Patgaon wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit. 3. The materials on record show that in pursuance to a notice issued for recruitment of Constable (GD) in the Central Arms Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025, the petitioner participated in the said recruitment process. While carrying out the medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was not fit for appointment as a Constable (GD). The petitioner thereupon requested for a review. The Review Medical Board by the opinion rendered on 22.11.2025 also concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the ground of deformity in the chest wall. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereupon carried out certain examination at the Fakharuddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta and it is the case of the petitioner that the Registrar of the said Medical College and Hospital Page No.# 4/5 had opined that the petitioner is clinically fit in the said examination. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also have taken note of the instructions so placed by Mr. SS Roy the learned CGC, who was asked to obtain instructions vide the order dated 17.12.2025. The said instructions being relevant are kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 6. From a perusal of the said instructions, it is seen that the Review Medical Board examined the petitioner and his HRCT Thorax was done at empanelled hospital and as per which it was opined as “Ground Glass Haziness in Superior And Lateral Basal Segment of Right Lower Lobe” and was advised to follow up. 7. This Court also has taken note of that the petitioner upon obtaining the medical opinion from the Fakharuddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta had not approached the respondent authorities by submitting a representation and had directly approached this Court. 8. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit on appeal and more particularly in respect to varied medical opinions rendered by the Review Medical Board of the respondent authorities as well as the Fakharuddin Ali Page No.# 5/5 Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta. 9. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is always at liberty to submit a representation along with the necessary documents before the Review Medical Board and the Review Medical Board on the basis thereof can very well look into the same. 11. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). In the present facts and circumstances of the case as observed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. (ii). The non-entertaining of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to submit a representation before the Review Medical Board of the respondents seeking a re-consideration on the basis of the medical opinions available with the petitioner as discussed above. (iii). In the circumstance, any representation is submitted within 10(ten) days from today, the Review Medical Board of the respondents shall look into the same and do the needful in accordance with their guidelines within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of the representation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant