Mousumi Devi Vs Union of India and 8 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010247842024

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6155/2024

¶6

MOUSUMI DEVI D/O- UMESH TALUKDAR, R/O- VILLAGE- ANANDA PUR, P.O- NITYANANDA, P.S- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST- BAJALI, ASSAM, PIN-781329

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY , TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. PIN- 110001.

¶9

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY BLOCK- 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003.

¶10

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NER STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE RUKMININAGAR P.O- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶12

BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK MO-10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

NEW DELHI-03

¶15

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶16

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003

¶17

6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶18

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003

¶19

7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011

¶20

8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE BLOCK NO 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003

¶21

9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHASASTRA SEEMA BAL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K PURAM NEW DELHI-2

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MR. R U AHMED,MS. D MAHANTA

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Page No.# 3/6

ORDER

09.09.2025

Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.

¶29

2. The petitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 24.11.2023 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, applied for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination for the year 2024. The petitioner claims to belong to the OBC category and asserts eligibility for the post, thus participating in the recruitment process. The petitioner was declared successful in both the Computer Based Test as well as the Physical Standard Test (PST)/ Physical Efficiency Test (PET). However, during the subsequent Medical Examinations, i.e. Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Board, the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of Morton’s Toe B/L.

¶30

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after being declared medically unfit and dissatisfied with the opinion of the medical reports, the petitioner examined herself before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH). The Orthopaedic Department of GMCH opined that the petitioner is clinically fit. In light of these contrary medical opinions—one from the specialists at the GMCH and the other from the medical doctors at the composite Medical Examination, where the petitioner was declared unfit—the petitioner has approached this Court, praying for an appropriate direction for the respondents to constitute a medical Board of Specialist Doctors of the relevant field to reconcile the opinion of the Doctors of the respondent authority.

¶31

4. The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavits. The

¶32

Page No.# 4/6

¶33

learned CGC for the respondents has relied upon the Revised guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Forces and Assam Rifles to show that as per Paragraph 09 of the Guidelines, the petitioner was declared unfit. The ground for rejection is shown to be Morton’s Toe B/L. The learned CGC submits that as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the present system in which only one Review Medical Examination is allowed and there is no appeal against the decision of the Review Medical Board. The learned CGC respondents have place an order of the Apex Court passed in SLP(C) Nos. 738-741/2022, where the SLP preferred by the Union although dismissed, it was observed that as a normal rule the decision taken by the Review Medical Board should be treated as final.

¶34

4 . The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on the record have been carefully perused. The amended guidelines for the Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles are enclosed to the affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶35

5. Upon perusal of the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the rejection of her application on the grounds of being found medically unfit by the CRPF Authorities. The petitioner’s prayer before this Court is to remand the matter, directing the respondents to reconstitute the Review Medical Board, in light of the opinions rendered by the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) The opinion indicates that the petitioner is clinically fit.

¶36

6 . Reference is also made to the guidelines for the Review Medical Examination, which lay down certain conditions for the process. These guidelines specify that, ordinarily, there is no right of appeal against the findings of the recruiting

¶37

Page No.# 5/6

¶38

Medical Officer or the initial Medical Board. However, if the government is satisfied with the evidence placed before them by the candidate, indicating the possibility of an error in judgment by the recruiting Medical Officer or the initial Medical Board, they may allow re-examination by the Review Medical Board. The guidelines also prescribe in detail the manner in which the medical evidence relied upon by the candidate should be presented before the Competent Authority when seeking reconsideration.

¶39

7. The facts of the present case reveal contradictory medical opinions. On one hand, the Detailed Medical Board and Review Medical Board rejected the petitioner on the grounds of being medically unfit due to Morton’s Fit B/L. On the other hand, after presenting her before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) the doctor of the College opined that the petitioner is clinically fit. Under these circumstances, the issue becomes a disputed question of fact, which a Writ Court ordinarily would not delve into.

¶40

8. Under these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to mould the relief prayed for by the petitioner and permit the petitioner to approach the Competent Authorities of the respondent within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner may file an application, duly supported by all relevant medical documents, including reports of tests, if any, undertaken/undergone by the petitioner before the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH). If the relevant medical documents are submitted along with the representation, the respondent authorities will take note of such medical opinions. If these opinions are found to be based on proper tests and examinations conducted by the medical authorities of GMCH, the respondent authorities will reconstitute a Review Medical Board for the re-examination of

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

the petitioner. If, in the opinion of the respondent authorities, civilian specialists from the concerned departments are necessary, they may also be included in the Review Medical Board.

¶43

9. If the representation, as directed above, is filed by the writ petitioner, then the directions contained in this order shall be carried out within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The representation must be filed in any prescribed format as may be deemed necessary, in accordance with the revised uniform guidelines for Review Medical Examination in CRPF and Assam Rifles and must also include a certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶44

10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Mousumi Devi v. Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mousumi Devi v. Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Sri Ghanashyam Bhuyan His Legal Heirs Binapani Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Hasiba Begum Vs Syedain Abbasi and 6 Ors.

Ratna Deep Das and 6 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.

Nizamuddin Ahmed Vs Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited and 3 Ors.

Nazim Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ankur Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.