37 27.07. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab WPA 30008 of 2025 Sahin Shahrian Mondal Vs. Union of India and others. --------------- Mr. Debasish Kundu, Mr. Sudeepta Kumar Basu, Mr. Bidan Modak. … For the petitioner. Mr. S. N. Dutta, Mr. Anindya Sundar Das. … For the UOI. 1. The exception filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, (CAPFs), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025. The petitioner had undergone the medical examination and was found with multiple medical conditions, which were all deemed to render the petitioner unfit. 3. The petitioner had caused a review and upon review it was likewise found that the petitioner was unfit. The petitioner had also been taken for an examination by the authorities, the findings whereof were clear and unequivocal that the petitioner did have a medical condition. On the basis of this specialized report made by the Medical Board, the Review Medical Board proceeded to hold that the petitioner indeed had 2 medical conditions, which rendered him unfit to be appointed to a disciplined Armed Force. 4. Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that these medical conditions are well within the definition of minor conditions and can easily be overlooked as they are acceptable defects. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India, submits that not all of the ailments as specified in the medical report fall within the fold of minor acceptable defects and indeed a condition such as fluid accumulation in the ankle area is not a minor acceptable defect and will be an impediment in not only in the training of the incumbent but also to discharge his duties. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner did indeed have a medical condition. In fact, it would be more appropriate to say that the petitioner had multiple medical conditions. It is true that some of these are acceptable defects in terms of Clause 7 of the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, as revised in May 2015. 7. However, the authorities have caused multiple examinations and also taken the opinion of an Expert Medical Board. The Expert Medical Board has rendered its opinion after consideration of all facts and circumstances and the Review Medical Board has 3 concurred with the opinion rendered by the Experts and accepted their medical opinion. On the basis of such accepted medical opinion, the Review Medical Board, a body, which is equipped to come to a finding as to the suitability of an incumbent for serving in any of the Central Armed Police Forces has opined that the petitioner is not in a position to discharge his functions and would not be a fit candidate to be selected or posted in any of these Forces. 8. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an Expert Body and cannot under any circumstances replace the opinion of the Expert Body, the Medical Board herein, with its own. 9. Since the authorities have conducted their due diligence and have taken the opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) 4