IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side 24.07.2026 S/L.56 Court No. 4 (Naba) M.A.T. 866 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Riya Mallick Vs. Union of India&Ors. Mr. Gunjan Kr. Singh, Ms. Rupsa Maity, Mr. Niranjan Yadav ...the Appellant Mr. Tushar Kanti Har, Mr. Anindya Sundar Das ...the Union of India Re: CAN 1 of 2026 1. There is an application for condonation of delay (16 days) in preferring the intra-court appeal. 2. The reason stated in the application manifest due diligence and the delay is also miniscule. Without much resistance from the respondents application for condonation is allowed. 3. The delay is condoned. Re: M.A.T. 866 of 2026 4. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondents. 2 5. The appellant/writ petitioner participated in a recruitment process for appointment of Constable (General Duty). There were 13 cut marks found on her left arm and wrist leading to her exclusion/disqualification in the Detailed Medical Examination conducted on 17.11.2025. The Detailed Medical Examination allowed her an opportunity for review before the Review Medical Examination. In the Review Medical Examination, the 13 cut marks/scars on her wrist and forearm were examined, wherein it is stated by the respondents in their report that she admitted to the fact that these were self-inflicted injuries. 6. This fact is vehemently disputed and denied by the learned advocate for the appellant submitting that the petitioner never admitted that the cuts were self-inflicted. 7. The learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 to submit that the appearance of the hesitation/cut marks or scars ipso facto cannot lead to a subsequent conclusion that the petitioner was suffering from a mental illness. It is thus submitted that the decision to exclude the petitioner from the recruitment process is unsustainable. 8. We have considered the submission, gone through the judgement of the learned Single Judge and the 3 report, copy of which has been handed over to the Court by the learned advocate for the appellant. 9. From bare perusal of the Review Medical Examination report dated 02.12.2025, it appears that the same, in specific terms, records that the marks are self-inflicted. The same is dated 02.12.2025, bears a signature of the appellant, without any objection. 10. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain a dispute or denial of such fact today in the present writ/appeal proceeding. 11. The decision, therefore, not to include the appellant in a Central Armed Force having regard to such observations found in the Review Medical Examination, in our opinion was rightly not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 12. We find no reason to interfere with the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in the writ proceeding (WPA No.30035 of 2025). 13. The intra-Court appeal is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)