14/07 2026 AD/157/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/29870/2025 SAMIM HOSSAIN SAHAJI VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Debasish Kundu, Advocate Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu, Advocate Mr. Bidan Modak, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. S.N. Dutta, Advocate Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Advocate ……for the Union of India 1. The petitioner is a successful candidate in the 2025 Staff Selection Commission Examination for Recruitment of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Forces (SSFs), Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination. Upon a Detailed Medical Examination (DME), the petitioner was found to have certain medical conditions and was thus sent for a Review Medical Examination (RME) to a Government Hospital i.e. College of Medicine & JNM, Kalyani, Nadia. The specialized body opined that the petitioner did not have the condition, as it had been surgically corrected. 2. In spite of such report, the RME Board by its review medical examination on 20.11.2025, found the petitioner to be unfit and thus, the petitioner's application for recruitment was rejected. 3. Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that once the petitioner had been declared as fit by the expert at College of Medicine & JNM, Kalyani, Nadia, there was no question or occasion for the RME Board to reject the petitioner's application. The rejection of the petitioner's P a g e | 2 application on 22.11.2025 is thus bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Kundu further submits that there are still vacancies in excess of 4,000 seats in the said Forces. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the RME Board is a specialized body and is entitled to reject an opinion of the experts, even if the RME Board itself had sought for such an opinion. This is in light of the fact that the opinion-rendering authority is a civil body and does not have the wherewithal to decide on the benchmark parameters for a person who will serve in a Disciplined Armed Force. Hence, the RME Board is entitled to differ from the opinion rendered by the Medical Body. 6. His second limb of submission relates to the fact that the Clause XIII-3(C) of Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination (RME) in Central Armed Police Forces clearly stipulates the condition of the petitioner to be an infraction, which may disentitle him from serving in the Forces. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad rendered in the case of Kamal Kant Dubey Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WRIT-A No. 16686 of 2025). 7. Mr. Dutta further submits that the final result has been published sometime in January 2026. 8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records and the decisions relied upon. 9. The facts are on a narrow conspectus and are fairly admitted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had a medical condition, which has been surgically cured. 10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, for P a g e | 3 abundant caution, had been sent for an investigation at the JNM Hospital, Kalyani which opined that the petitioner's condition had been cured. 11. On the basis of this report, the RME Board proceeded to hold that the petitioner was unfit for the service in CAPF. The RME Board is the only authority which is empowered to decide on the issue of whether an aspiring incumbent is medically fit to carry out or discharge his obligations. 12. The RME Board thus has the right not to accept the opinion rendered by the investigating authority. This is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 15804/2025 and CM APPL No. 64751/2025 (Naomi Neijoujam Haokip Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.). It has been held in no uncertain terms that the opinion of a specialized body is not binding on the DME Board or the RME Board and that it is open for the RME Board or the DME Board to differ from the opinion of the specialized body, however, upon giving reasons to indicate why a different opinion has been taken. 13. It is clear that the petitioner in the present case did have a condition which tantamounts to an infraction of health parameters set forth in the CAPFs. It may be that such infraction has been ‘cured’ by way of a correctional surgery. 14. However, it is impossible for a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to come to a finding whether the petitioner is in a position to discharge duties if he is employed in an Armed Force. This exercise has to be undertaken by the Medical Board (RME and DME). 15. However, what is glaring is that the RME Board itself chose to obtain a medical opinion, which opinion P a g e | 4 rendered the petitioner as medically fit. 16. In spite of such an opinion, the RME Board proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not medically fit for the job. There is not a word in the report of the RME Board as to why the petitioner is not fit and also not a whisper as to why the RME Board is taking a decision contrary to the opinion rendered by the JNM Hospital and under what circumstances the infraction of the petitioner is relatable to any of the guidelines as pointed out by Mr. Dutta. The petitioner's candidature cannot be rejected on mere conjecture and surmise, which is exactly what the report of the RME Board, is at this stage. 17. The report of the RME Board is bald, lacking in material particulars, and reeks of arbitrariness. 18. The report of the RME Board dated 22.11.2025 declaring the petitioner to be unfit is thus set aside. 19. The RME Board is directed to send the petitioner for a special investigation by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Kalyani within a period of three weeks from the date of service of this order on them. 20. Upon receipt of the opinion from the AIIMS, Kalyani, the RME Board will proceed to decide whether to accept or reject the petitioner's candidature based on the opinion of AIIMS, Kalyani. 21. If the RME Board is of the opinion that the petitioner is still unfit or suffers from an ailment; whether curable or not, which could be an impediment for him to discharge his duties as a Constable in an Armed Force, the RME Board will give adequate reasons for its difference of opinion with AIIMS, Kalyani, if at all. 22. This entire exercise will be completed by August 31, 2026. P a g e | 5 23. During the hearing, it was submitted that the Medical Board has now become defunct as the examination process has already been completed. 24. In view thereof, the respondent no. 5, or any other Officer duly authorized by respondent no. 5, will constitute a Review Medical Board for the purpose of complying with the directions contained in this order. 25. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. All parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)