Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010278412025 2026:GAU-AS:960 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7398/2025 ALIMUL HUSSAIN S/O AMIN HUSSAIN, VILL- PARCHIM DURAHATI (PRATAPKHATA PAT II) P.O PRATAPKHATA, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, PIN 783337 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR P.O.- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-06 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK 7 LEVEL 4 SECTOR R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI- 110066 5:PRESIDING OFFICER-RME BOARD RECRUITMENT OF CT/GD-2025 GC CRPF Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI- 78102 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Ali, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. N. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Mrs. R. Devi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that apart from the other respondents, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Presiding Officer, RECTT. Board, PO, Executive Board DV/DME/RME-CT (GD) Exam-25, Center CAPFs CH BSF Patgaon as a party to the instant proceedings. Page No.# 3/6 3. Taking into account the said, this Court impleads the RECTT. Board, PO, Executive Board DV/DME/RME-CT (GD) Exam-25, Center CAPFs CH BSF Patgaon as respondent No. 6 in the instant proceedings. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is directed to file an amended Memo of Parties before the Registry of this Court during the course of the day and on the basis of the said Memo of Parties and the judgment passed herein, the Registry is directed to make necessary changes in the Cause Title as well as update the same in the CIS. 5. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board-II of the Centre- CAPFs, CH BSF, Patgaon wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit. 6. The materials on record show that in pursuance to a notice issued for recruitment of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025, the petitioner participated in the said recruitment process. While carrying out the medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was not fit for appointment as a Constable (GD). The petitioner thereupon requested for a review. The Review Medical Board by the opinion rendered on Page No.# 4/6 21.11.2025 concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the ground that the petitioner had burn injury mark on right foot with abnormal great toe nail. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereupon carried out certain examination at the Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar and it is the case of the petitioner that the Registrar, Department of Orthopaedics of the said Medical College and Hospital in the case of the petitioner opined that the petitioner had no recent harm; not change over (R) great toe; tenderness absent; other skin charges absent; (R) Ankle was within normal limit; (R) Toe was also within normal limit and the petitioner was fit for daily activity. The said opinion was given on 27.11.2025. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 9. This Court also has taken note of that the petitioner upon obtaining the medical opinion from the Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar had not approached the Respondent Authorities by submitting a representation and had directly approached this Court. 10. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal and, more Page No.# 5/6 particularly, in respect to varied medical opinions rendered by the Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities as well as the Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar. 11. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. 12. Be that as it may, the petitioner are always at liberty to submit a representation along with the necessary documents before the Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities and the Review Medical Board on the basis thereof can very well look into the same. 13. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). In the present facts and circumstances of the case as observed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. (ii). The non-entertaining of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to submit a representation before the Review Medical Board of the respondents seeking a re-consideration on the basis of the medical opinions available with the petitioner as discussed above. (iii). In the circumstance, any representation is submitted within Page No.# 6/6 10 (ten) days from today, the Review Medical Board of the respondents shall look into the same and do the needful in accordance with their guidelines within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the representation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.01.29 18:30:23 +05'30'