Facts
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the CAPFs, SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in NCB Examination-2025 following an advertisement dated 05.09.2024
Source reference: p. 3While the petitioner successfully cleared the Computer Based Test and Physical Standard/Efficiency Tests, he was declared unfit during the Detailed Medical Examination due to "Fungal dermatitis" and "Reddish discoloration of skin"
Source reference: p. 3The RME Board referred him to a Dermatologist at Silchar Medical College & Hospital, who opined the condition (Tinea Corporis) was non-infectious, would resolve with treatment, and declared the petitioner "FIT"
Source reference: p. 3However, the Review Medical Board ultimately rejected the petitioner citing "Tinea corporis post inflammatory hyper-pigmentation and Nevi" without referencing the civilian specialist's opinion
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature in light of the contradictory medical opinion provided by the civilian specialist at Silchar Medical College & Hospital.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the matter requires a fresh medical assessment to resolve the inconsistencies between the official Medical Board and the referred specialist's findings.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of administrative fairness and judicial review concerning recruitment medical standards.
Source reference: no citation / implied p. 3-4It relied on the doctrine that when faced with contradictory medical opinions between a government-referred specialist and a recruitment board, the authorities must provide a reasoned consideration of the specialist’s findings rather than summarily dismissing them
Source reference: no citation / implied p. 3-4The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to remand the matter for re-evaluation to ensure the petitioner's eligibility is assessed accurately
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the Review Medical Board (RME) failed to discuss or reference the specific findings of the Dermatologist at Silchar Medical College & Hospital, despite the petitioner having been referred there by the Board itself
Source reference: p. 3The civilian specialist had provided a detailed opinion stating the condition was non-infectious and would not hamper day-to-day activities, essentially declaring the petitioner fit for service
Source reference: p. 3The Court found that the subsequent rejection by the RME on the grounds of "Tinea corporis post inflammatory hyper-pigmentation" ignored this expert evidence without justification
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the Court determined that the existence of these contradictory medical opinions necessitated a fresh examination by a specialist to ensure a fair assessment of the petitioner's medical fitness for the post
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the respondent authorities.
The Court directed the respondents to re-examine the petitioner through a Review Medical Board, involving a specialist if necessary
Source reference: p. 4The Court held that if no abnormalities are found upon re-examination, consequential orders for recruitment should be issued, and a copy of the medical opinion must be served to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 4The entire process is mandated to be completed within 60 days of the receipt of the certified order
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Umesh KoirivsThe Union Of India And 5 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in