Dismissed¶¶35

Suman Das v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Feb 2026WP(C)/2733/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2733/2024; Suman Das v. Union of India and 7 Ors; CISF Constable recruitment; Defective Colour Vision (CPV); provisional appointment letter dated 22.08.2023; withdrawal order dated 16.01.2024; Review Medical Board; conflicting medical opinions; independent Medical Board; Director of Health Services State of Assam; GMCH Guwahati; AIIMS Guwahati; medical unfitness; Justice Rajesh Mazumdar; order dated 06.02.2026; prayers rejected; writ petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Since a board of specialists in Ophthalmology opined during the Review Medical Board that the petitioner suffers from Defective Colour Vision, this Court cannot proceed to grant the release prayed for in the writ petition. ¶¶35

Suman Das Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appointment to the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on the ground of medical unfitness due to lack of requisite eye vision (Defective Colour Vision) should be interfered with, in view of the conflicting medical opinions.

¶¶25

Court's answer

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The prayers in the writ petition are rejected.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The writ petition is closed and the report of the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services is kept on record and marked X.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Rajesh Mazumdar, J.), order dated 06.02.2026 in WP(C)/2733/2024 — Medical unfitness / Defective Colour Vision in CISF Constable recruitment. The petitioner was provisionally appointed as Constable (CISF) by letter dated 22.08.2023 after passing the first medical examination, subject to a fresh examination; upon re-examination he was declared unfit due to Defective Colour Vision (CPV) and his provisional appointment was withdrawn by order dated 16.01.2024. An appeal before the Review Medical Board also found him unfit, whereas two independent examinations (Registrar of Ophthalmology, RIO GMCH Guwahati, 02.03.2024; Associate Professor, Ophthalmology, AIIMS Guwahati, 06.03.2024) declared him free from the defect. Confronted with conflicting opinions, the Court, by its earlier order dated 19.09.2025, had an independent Medical Board of Ophthalmology specialists constituted by the Director of Health, State of Assam, examine the petitioner and report. On the Review Medical Board report confirming that the petitioner indeed suffers from Defective Colour Vision, the Court held it could not proceed to grant the release prayed for; the prayers were rejected and the writ petition closed, with the Medical Board report kept on record and marked X.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010102302024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2733/2024

¶6

SUMAN DAS S/O- LATE JITEN NARAYAN, VILL.- DASPARA, P.O. AND P.S.- MAHENDRAGANJ, DIST.- SOUTH WEST GARO HILLS, MEGHALAYA, PIN- 794106.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BLOCK NO. 12, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003.

¶9

2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NORTH EASTERN REGION) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE BELTOLA-BASISTHA ROAD

¶10

P.O.- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA

¶11

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-7 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

RK PURAN NEW DELHI-110066.

¶15

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/ PRINCIPAL CISF MAHARANA PRATAP RECRUIT TRAINING CENTRE (MPRTC) BEHROR RAJASTHAN- 301713. 5:THE SENIOR COMMANDANT-CUM-CHAIRMAN DOSSIERS SCRUTINY BOARD REGIONAL RECRUITMENT CENTRE NE ZONE HEAD QUARTER GUWAHATI BEHARBARI NEAR A.G. COLONY HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD KAMRUP (ASSAM) GUWAHATI- 29. 6:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (SG) CISF MAHARANA PRATAP RECRUIT TRAINING CENTER (MPRTC) BEHROR RAJASTHAN- 301713. 7:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARDS OF REFERRAL HOSPITAL ITBP GREATER NOIDA- 201301. 8:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARDS OF BSF HOSPITAL-1 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI- 110001

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R ISLAM, S PAUL,MS. A HUSSAIN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, HEALTH,MR. B GOGOI,MRS S BARUAH

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 06.02.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC. Mr. B. Gogoi, has appeared on behalf of the Medical Board being authorized with the Director of Health State of Assam which was requested to carry out medical board of the petitioner with regard to the allegations that he has Defective Colour Vision. The earlier order of this Court of 19.09.2025 reflects as follows:

¶24

“Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC.

¶25

The grievance raised in the instant writ petition, is rejection of the petitioner's appointment to the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), pursuant to the recruitment process in question; on the ground that he is medically unfit due to lack of requisite eye vision.

¶26

Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first round of the medical examination, conducted by the respondent authorities; he, being medically found fit, was given the provisional appointment by letter dated 22.08.2023, subject of-course, to a fresh medical examination.

¶27

Mr. Islam further submits that pursuant to his joining, he was again medically examined; wherein, he was declared unfit, due to Defective Colour Vision (CPV) for which, he was found not suitable for the post in question and accordingly, his provisional appointment order was withdrawn by order dated 16.01.2024.

¶28

It is pertinent to note that though, an appeal was also preferred before the Review Medical Board, which, also after examining him, found him unfit. However, it appears that subsequent to his being found medically unfit by the respondent medical review board, two independent medical authorities upon examining him; one being the Registrar of Ophthalmology, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Guahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Guwahati, on 02.03.2024 and the other, being the Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Guwahati, on 06.03.2024; he was declared free from Defective Colour Vision, likely to interfere with the efficiency of his/her work and found him/her possessing good health.

¶29

In view of the conflicting medial opinions, and having regard to the nature of employment

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

involved, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires an independent Medical Opinion. Accordingly, it is directed that an independent Medical Board be constituted by the Director of Health, State of Assam, comprising specialists in Ophthalmology, to examine the petitioner.

¶32

The Medical Board shall specifically assess and record, whether there exist any defect or shortcomings in the petitioner's eyesight, which may reasonably hinder the effective performance of duties attached to the post of Constable.

¶33

The petitioner shall present himself before the said Medical Board on the date and time, to be fixed by the authorities.

¶34

The Medical Board shall conduct a thorough examination, furnish detailed report, and forward the same to this Court within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of examination”.

¶35

Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General/Standing counsel Health Department, has placed the report of the Review Medical Board before this Court which shows the petitioner indeed suffers from Defective Colour Vision. Since a board of specialist in Ophthalmology has opined that the petitioner suffers from the defect during the Review Medical Board, this Court cannot proceed to grant the release prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly the prayers are rejected.

¶36

Writ petition is closed. The report of the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services is kept on record and marked X.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Withdrawal of the petitioner's provisional appointment order dated 16.01.2024 after he was declared medically unfit due to Defective Colour Vision (CPV) and found not suitable for the post of Constable (CISF), a finding of unfitness maintained by the Review Medical Board on appeal.¶¶27
Respondent authorities / Review Medical Board · 16.01.2024
Prior proceeding
In the first round of the medical examination the petitioner was found medically fit and given a provisional appointment by letter dated 22.08.2023, subject to a fresh medical examination.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
After joining, the petitioner was again medically examined and declared unfit due to Defective Colour Vision (CPV); an appeal before the Review Medical Board also resulted in a finding of unfitness.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Subsequently, two independent medical authorities — the Registrar of Ophthalmology, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Guahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Guwahati on 02.03.2024, and the Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Guwahati on 06.03.2024 — examined the petitioner and declared him free from Defective Colour Vision.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
This Court's earlier order dated 19.09.2025 was reproduced in the present order.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
In that earlier order, faced with conflicting medical opinions, the Court directed that an independent Medical Board comprising specialists in Ophthalmology be constituted by the Director of Health, State of Assam, to examine the petitioner, specifically assess and record whether any defect in his eyesight could hinder effective performance as Constable, and forward a detailed report to the Court within three weeks of the examination.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Pursuant thereto, Mr. B. Gogoi placed the report of the Review Medical Board before the Court, which showed that the petitioner indeed suffers from Defective Colour Vision.¶¶35

Suman Das v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Das v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangjali Basumatary @ Rangjali Mushahary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sarat Ch. Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dipanjali Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anjan Hafila Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rupak Jyoti Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ms. Rejina Dekaraja Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.