25/08 2026 AD/36/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/29056/2025 SUJAN GHOSH VS THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. Mr. Subhajyoti Das, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advocate Mr. Pradip Paul, Advocate ……for the Respondents 1. The petitioner is aggrieved that his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he is medically unfit. 2. Upon examination by the Detailed Medical Examination Board (DME), he was found to be inflicted with tachycardia. 3. Upon Review Medical Examination (RME), the petitioner was duly examined and was found to be unfit on account of LVH and sinus arrhythmia. This is a heart condition where the main pumping chamber of the heart, the left ventricle, has become thicker than normal and consequentially suffers from irregular heartbeat, which is indicative of underlying heart diseases. 4. The petitioner has examined himself from several authorities, including AIIMS, Kalyani and District Hospital, Nadia, Krishnanagar. 5. It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition, which includes the electrocardiogram report (ECG) and other concerned reports from the afore- stated authorities; the heart condition of the petitioner is somewhat in a better condition than what has been assessed by the RME. 6. The rejection by the RME is not based on an opinion by a third party, as the RME did not feel the need to P a g e | 2 ask for any third-party opinion. However, since the rejection has been caused by the RME, the same is based on their internal findings and reports. 7. Since there seems to be a stark difference between the opinion of the doctors constituting the RME and the District Hospital Nadia, as well as AIIMS, Kalyani, it would be appropriate that a fresh Review Medical Board be constituted to look into the reports and documents which will be produced by the petitioner along with the report of the earlier RME. 8. In view of the afore-stated findings, I direct the concerned respondent to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board to look into the varying reports given by the authorities. If required, the Review Medical Board will cause a fresh investigation to be done to obtain more recent clinical findings, on the basis whereof the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for onward progression of the matter for recommendation of the petitioner to the post of constable. 9. The entire exercise shall be completed by November 30, 2026. 10. The resultant order should be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 11. I make it clear that this consideration will not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioner, which he otherwise did not have. 12. With the afore-stated directions, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3