Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010263582025 2026:GAU-AS:973 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6757/2025 MOHAN GOGOI S/O- SASHIDHAR GOGOI, VILL- BURHABURHI, P.O BHOLABORI, P.S- NARAYANPIUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS , NEW DELHI-10 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN LODHI ROAD BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-03 3:STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION NORTH EASTERN REGION REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF RECRUITMENT BOARD RTC SSB SALONIBARI P.O- SALONIBARI DIST- SONITPUR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN-784104 5:THE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER RTC SSC SALONIBARI P.O- SALONIBARI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78410 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. R. Mondal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Roy, CGC · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.01.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. R. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board No.5 (DV & DME) Page No.# 3/5 RTC SSB, Salonibari 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 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 20.11.2025 also concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the grounds of stammering and knock knee. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereupon carried out certain examination on 22.11.2025 at Lakhimpur Medical College and Hospital, North Lakhimpur wherein the Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics of the said Medical College and Hospital, after examination, found that all the parameters including the knock-knee were within the physiological (normal) limit. Thereafter, on 24.11.2025, the Petitioner appeared before the ENT, OPD of Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati wherein it was found that the Petitioner was not suffering from stammering and his speech is normal. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. Page No.# 4/5 5. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 6. This Court has also taken note of that the petitioner upon obtaining the medical opinion from the Lakhimpur Medical College and Hospital, North Lakhimpur as well as the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati had not approached the Respondent Authorities by submitting a representation and had directly approached this Court. 7. 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 varied medical opinions rendered by the Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities; Lakhimpur Medical College and Hospital, North Lakhimpur as well as the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati. 8. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner is 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. 10. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: Page No.# 5/5 (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 Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.01.28 18:52:56 +05'30'