7th July, 2026 (D/L No.27) Ct. No.4 (SKB) F.M.A. 711 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Ujjal Kumar Mondal Versus The Union of India and others Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury … for the appellant. Mr. Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee, Mr. Narendra Prasad Gupta … for the U.O.I. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the appellant and the Union of India. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is a constable in the respondent force was found unfit for continuance in duties which he assailed before the writ court. 3. The learned Single Judge directed for constitution of a Medical Board. The Medical Board considered the petitioner’s/appellant’s condition and after a detailed and through examination, held the petitioner/appellant was mentally unfit to handle duties with arms/ammunition in stressful situations, which are occupational hazards of the petitioner’s/appellant’s nature of service as a constable in the Central Para Military Force. 2 4. An intra court appeal is filed wherein it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the findings of the Medical Board are at variance with the report of the doctors on the earlier two occasions namely, 18.04.2024 and 07.11.2024. He submits that the findings of the Medical Board, therefore, are unreliable and cannot be made the basis of holding the appellant unfit. 5. The learned advocate for the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that there is no dispute that a thorough examination was done pursuant to the orders passed in the writ proceeding. The findings of the Medical Board comprising of specialists may not be gone into by this court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 6. We have considered the rival submission. The three reports relied upon are dated 18.04.2024, 07.11.2024 and 06.12.2024. From reading of the three documents, we find that there is no variation whatsoever in the three reports. Ever since on 18.04.2024, the appellant/petitioner was diagnosed having panic with obsessive rumination, anxiety and somatization. The petitioner’s/appellant’s examination revealed 3 that he had no psychotic or affective features “now”. The report dated 07.11.2024 is in the same terms. Therefore, the sole submission raised in the present appeal regarding alleged variation is found to be without any substance. Having regard to the nature of findings therein, the petitioner/appellant was held to be unfit for continuance in service of a Central Armed Force. 7. We find from the third and final medical report dated 06.12.2024 pursuant to examination by a Medical Board in compliance with directions in the course of the writ proceeding, that the same ratifies and substantiates the earlier two findings regarding panic and excessive anxiety, but in more detail. 8. The third and latest report only found the writ petitioner’s condition to be aggravated. Thus, there is no variation in substance, between the three reports. 9. The reports of the experts have not been challenged on the grounds of mala fide or violation of any procedures. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner’s/appellant’s claim in the writ proceeding was rightly not gone into by the writ court. 4 10. The intra court appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the application being CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)