Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277762025 2026:GAU-AS:977 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7408/2025 HIRAKJYOTI SAIKIA S/O- PRODIP KUMAR SAIKIA, VILL- BELIMUKIA MAHMORA, NAMTI PATHAR, BELIMUKIA, SIVASAGAR, PO- NAMTI PATHER, PS- AMGURI, DIST- SIBSAGAR, STATE- ASSAM, PIN- 785684 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 Page No.# 2/4 GC CRPF GUWAHATI- 78102 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. N Ali Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. SS Roy, CGC Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.01.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. N. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. SS Roy, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered in the Review Medical Examination Report of the Addl.RME Board, CT/GD-2025, GC CRPF, Guwahati, wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit. 3. 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 the Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Page No.# 3/4 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 20.11.2025 concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the ground that the petitioner had Defective Colour Vision – CP IV. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereupon carried out certain examination at the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat and it is the case of the petitioner that the Registrar, Department of Ophthalmology of the said Medical College and Hospital in the case of the petitioner opined as follow: 1. External Ocular examination-within normal limit; 2. Visual Acquity <6/6. N6 (Without Spectacles) 6/6, N6 3. Colour Vision < within normal limits within normal limits 5. The above opinion was given on 24.11.2025. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 7. This Court also has taken note of that the petitioner upon obtaining the medical opinion from the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat had not approached the Respondent Authorities by submitting a representation and had directly approached this Court. 8. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal and, more particularly, in respect to Page No.# 4/4 varied medical opinions rendered by the Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities as well as the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat. 9. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. 10. 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. 11. 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 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