S/L 11 13.08.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N M.A.T. 42 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Dipak Saha Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Debasish Kundu, Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu, Mr. Bidan Modak … for the Appellant. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Mr. Shaunak Ghosh … for the Union of India. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant. 2. The writ petitioner was an applicant in a process of recruitment for appointment of Constables in the Central Armed Police Forces. He was declared unfit during a detailed medical examination (for short „DME‟) conducted on 21.11.2025. The DME found the petitioner unfit as he was not found worthy of 14 points, requisite for being declared fit in respect of the status of his denture. There was an option available to the petitioner to avail a review medical examination (for short „RME‟), which was scheduled on the next date. 3. The petitioner availed the RME on the next date that is on 22.11.2025. The RME conducted an OPG test and found that the petitioner was worthy of 11 dental points only. The OPG revealed that a crown and bridge was placed in his denture. Some other deformity of the 2 denture status was found at number 28. The petitioner‟s total points was thus assessed by the RME to be 11. 4. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the finding is incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioner should at least have been granted 17 points. It is further submitted that the petitioner had sufficient number of “well filled teeth” as requisite under the extant guidelines. The fact that he had undergone root canal treatment cannot lead to an inference that he had any artificial denture. Therefore, he submits that exclusion of points for the teeth which was subjected to RCT is unsustainable. 5. Referring to the guidelines it is submitted that the authorities during the RME did not adhere to the provisions contained in the “Revised Uniform Guidelines For Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs” dated 31.05.2021. 6. He has drawn attention of the Court towards Clause 6(d) of the same to submit that the RME was obliged to obtain opinion of specialist/super specialist of Government medical college and hospitals. 7. Referring to Clause 8 of the guidelines it is submitted that the findings recorded merely on clinical assessment was required to be avoided. The authorities have not observed these two guidelines giving rise to a procedural error striking at the root of the findings arrived at in the RME, prejudicial to the writ petitioner. 3 8. The learned advocate for the Union of India, on the other hand has drawn attention of the Court towards the relevant provision specifying the manner of award of points for denture status. He has laid emphasis on the following provision: “A candidate will be accepted provided there are at least 14 Dental points in his/her mouth and all these teeth must be sound or repairable. Thus, the minimum number of points required in a candidate will be 14. Well filled teeth will be considered as sound. No points will be counted for artificial denture.” 9. He submits that since the fact of root canal treatment is not in dispute. Therefore, such teeth has rightly been excluded for grant of marks as such teeth cannot be considered as “well filled teeth”. The points awarded by the authorities in the DME and RME, therefore, pursuant to a meticulous exercise collectively by a board of medical experts does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of judicial review. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. 11. Insofar as the writ petitioner‟s assertion that the was entitled to 17 points, we would only observe that neither the authorities, nor the Writ Court could proceed on a self serving assessment made by the candidate. 12. The DME and RME are part of a uniform procedure for assessment of physical and mental status of candidates. The job profile of a Constable requires a high level of physical and mental strength since endurance and discipline is the key to discharge of duties, with arms on the post in difficult terrain, for which the petitioner was 4 participating in the process of recruitment. Therefore, all the candidates have to undergo the DME and RME by a uniform process. In the process the authorities have arrived at certain findings which normally the Writ Court would refrain from sitting in appeal over. 13. Insofar as the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner regarding a procedural error, we have considered Clause 6(d) of the guidelines dated 31.05.2021. The guidelines mandates that opinion be obtained from Government medical college and specialist/super specialist, but “in case of any doubt”. In the present case the DME and RME was not facing any doubt as the same is not manifest from the proceeding of the DME and RME. Therefore, an allegation regarding non compliance with this provision is non est. 14. Insofar as the reliance placed on Clause 8, we find that the guidelines in this provision mandates that a rejection is not to be resorted to merely on clinical findings. In the present case the report of the RME manifest that the petitioner was subjected to an OPG. The guideline in Clause 7(k) mandates: “7. Following examples are cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board:- …… k) For a case of dental points less than 14, OPG should be carried out.” 15. Therefore, we find that the procedure prescribed in the guidelines dated 31.05.2021 was complied. A procedural error has not been pointed out otherwise. 5 16. Insofar as another submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that once the teeth was subjected to a root canal treatment it was required to be considered as a well filled teeth, we find no substance in such submission. It is only if there is a cavity or in the event of certain tooth decay or damage, that an RCT is given to a patient. Therefore, there was no scope for the petitioner to claim that the teeth on which RCT was performed be treated as “well filled teeth”. Such submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, also does not inure to the petitioner‟s benefits. Based on such submission, we are not inclined to interfere with the assessment of the two boards comprising of doctors and the findings based on a procedure uniformly applied to all candidates and sustained by the extant guidelines. 17. We find no reason to interfere with the order dated 15.12.2025 passed in W.P.A. No. 27903 of 2025 by the Learned Writ Court rejecting the petitioner‟s writ petition. 18. The appeal is dismissed. 19. Pending application is also dismissed. 20. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)