26 14.07. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 29994 of 2025 Biswarup Pramanick Vs. Union of India and others. --------------- Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty, Mr. Debasish Kundu, Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu, Mr. Bidan Modak. … for the petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ms. Runu Mukherjee. … for the State. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved that his candidature for recruitment as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, (CAPFs), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025, has been rejected by the Review Medical Examination Board on the basis of the Review Medical Examination report on December 6, 2025. 2. The petitioner was a successful candidate and upon Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Review Medical Examination (RME) was sent for an investigation at the JNM Hospital, Kalyani, who opined that the petitioner had one degree Hemarrhoids with no history of bleeding. According to the petitioner, in terms of the medical guidelines, only if there is a Hemarrhoids with evidence of 2 bleeding, can it be construed as a disqualifying factor. Since the petitioner does not have any bleeding, the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the RME Board. 3. Ms. Alam, learned Advocate appearing for the State, submits that RME Board had given a specified opinion upon consideration of facts and circumstances that the petitioner has a one degree Hemarrhoids, which requires constant medication, is not entitled to be appointed in the Armed Forces, on account whereof, the said application of the petitioner was rejected. 4. The petitioner indeed did have a medical condition, which may or may not be a disabling factor for him to discharge the duties, if he was to be appointed as a Constable in the Armed Forces. However, whether such condition would be disabling or not is quite beyond the domain of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the same time, the report of the RME Board on the basis whereof the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, is bare. Neither does it relate to nor is it relatable to a ground or to any of the grounds stipulated in the medical guidelines, which would disentitle the petitioner from being appointed as Constable in Armed Forces. The finding of the 3 RME Board is contrary to the opinion rendered by the Expert Body, from which the RME Board itself had sought for an opinion. 6. There is no bar for the RME Board to differ from the opinion of the Experts. Clearly, the RME Board is not bound by the opinion of the Experts. However, at any juncture that the RME Board decides to take a decision, which is contrary to the opinion rendered by the Experts appointed by it, it would only be trite that the RME Board gives sufficient reasons as to why it is taking a differing opinion or stand from that of the Experts. The RME Board’s decision should also reflect as to why and in relation to which ground in the guidelines their decision was being taken and the candidature of an aspiring incumbent was being rejected. 7. From the report of the RME Board, no such particulars are discernable and the word “unfit” quite unsupported with reasons is the only standalone epithet to the petitioner’s medical credibility. 8. The order impugned is, thus, unsustainable in law and is set aside, as it is bereft of reasons, in contradiction of the opinion rendered by the Experts, without any reason as to why a different opinion is being taken from that of the Experts and also quite bare and bold as to the coalition to the medical 4 guidelines prescribed for the Forces. 9. The RME Board will consider afresh the candidature of the petitioner on the medical ground on the basis of the available report from the Expert Body of the JNM Hospital and give a reasoned order or at least render a reasoned opinion in the matter. This exercise will be completed by August 31, 2026. 10. As informed at the time of hearing, the Medical Board has now become functus officio and has been discharged after completion of the entire process of the examination. 11. In view of the afore-stated order, I direct the respondent no. 5, who is the Nodal Agency in the matter or an Officer duly authorized by him to request the respondent no. 4 to reconstitute a Medical Board, who will undertake the entire exercise as stipulated in the instant order. This exercise should be in consonance with the timelines mentioned hereinbefore. 12. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 14. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) 5