S/L 14 05.08.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N F.M.A. 1743 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Moupriya Samui Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Gunjan Kumar Singh, Ms. Rupsa Maity, Mr. Prakash Mishra, Mr. Niranjan Yadav … for the Appellant. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Mr. Gourab Karmakar … for the Respondents/Union of India. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner participated in a recruitment process for appointment of Constables. A Detailed Medical Examination (for short ‘DME’) was conducted in the process of recruitment wherein the authorities found several conditions coming in the way of petitioner’s selection. Based on such physical disabilities or disqualification she was found unfit. There was an option to the petitioner to prefer a Review Medical Examination (for short ‘RME’) against findings of the DME dated 07.11.2024. The petitioner availed such facility and an RME was conducted on 16.11.2024. The findings recorded in the RME are in respect of medical conditions rendering the petitioner’s candidature unfit. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the Writ Court failed to consider that the 2 diagnosis insofar as RIT is concerned was not by resorting to a proper procedure. It is further submitted that the findings regarding multiple hesitation marks/scar marks are also unsustainable to be a ground for her unfitness. He submits that such marks were as a result of the fact that petitioner participated in sports activity, prior to participation in the recruitment process. 4. The learned advocate for the Union of India has earlier submitted a report dated 20.07.2026. The entire procedure right from the DME to RME has been laid threadbare before the Court. We find that a through examination was done by doctors. The decision rendering the petitioner unfit is a decision arrived as a result of collective consideration by doctors at DME and RME, including specialist. Under the circumstances, having regard to the nature of employment in question in a Central Armed Force, there is no scope for this Court to sit in appeal over these findings. 5. In view of nature of multiple findings forming the basis of petitioner’s disqualification, as unfit, we refrain from interfering with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge rejecting the petitioner’s writ petition. 6. Insofar as submission about the process being in any way unfair, we find that such submission is not supported by reference to any procedure to show that there was any procedural infirmity. There is also no allegation of malafide or bias against any individual. 3 7. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in W.P.A 29224 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. 9. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)