Upendra Chouhan Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010248822024

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3373

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6221/2024

¶6

UPENDRA CHOUHAN S/O SRI PRAHLAD CHOUHAN R/O VILL NO. 3 CHIKAJHORA P.O. JHARBISHPANI, P.S. PANBARI DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN-783390

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶10

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)

¶11

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) RUKMINI NAGAR P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-781006.

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶13

BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF)

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI NAGAR

¶16

NEW DELHI- 110003

¶17

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶18

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003

¶19

6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶20

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX

¶21

LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶22

7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶23

ASSAM RIFLES. NONGRIMMAW LAITUMKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011

¶24

8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶25

INTO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶26

9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶27

SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110003

¶28

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U N CHATTRY, MS A GOGOI,MR. O LASKAR

¶29

Page No.# 3/7

¶30

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH(C.G.C)

¶31

BEFORE

¶32

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Date : 06.03.2026

¶35

Heard Mr. O Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has assailed the findings of the Medical Boards i.e. Detailed Medical Examination Board and Review Medical Examination Board which had held him to be unsuitable for being enrolled as a member of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).

¶37

The petitioner, herein, had submitted his applications, in pursuance to a notice dated 24.11.2023, by which a process for recruitment against the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Riflemen, (General Duty) in Assam Rifles was initiated for recruitment by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The petitioner contends that he was successful in the Physical Standard Test as well as the Physical Efficiency Test. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination and, therein, the Detailed Medical Examination Board, found the petitioner to be unfit as he was found to be suffering from a condition called ‘Kyphosis’ which is a spinal disorder characterized by an abnormal curvature of the spine.

¶38

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said report, submitted an application for being examined by a Review Medical Examination Board. The prayer of the petitioner was accepted and he was directed to appear before the Review Medical Examination Board, as constituted in the matter. The Review Medical Examination Board, upon examining the petitioner and also after perusing the report of the Radiological Examination carried out, with

¶39

Page No.# 4/7

¶40

regard to the petitioner’s spine, proceeded to opine, vide its report dated 23.10.2024, that the petitioner was unfit for recruitment against posts figuring in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), on account of suffering from Lumbar Scoliosis, towards the left side. The said report also indicates that the X-ray of the spine of the petitioner had revealed a Cobb’s angle of 56 degree and accordingly, he was held to be suffering from mild Lumbar Scoliosis, towards the left side.

¶41

The petitioner projects that he had, on rejection of his case by the constituted Medical Boards, approached the Doctors in the Department of Orthopedics, Kokrajhar Medical College Hospital, Kokrajhar. The petitioner has brought on record, the reports of the said Kokrajhar Medical College Hospital, Kokrajhar which indicates that the petitioner is not suffering from Lumbar Scoliosis. Further, the report revealed that the petitioner’s spine was found to be within Zero degree of Cobb’s angle. The reports of the Detailed Medical Examination Board as well as the Review Medical Examination Board and the report of the Kokrajhar Medical College Hospital, Kokrajhar, having brought on record, contradictory medical opinions, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings before this Court.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, submits that considering the reports of the constituted Medical Boards, there ought to be significant change in the appearance of the petitioner and his gait would also be different, which was permissible to be detected while the petitioner was undergoing PET, however, no such remark came to be made by the authorities conducting PET, in respect of the petitioner.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Specialist in the Orthopedics Department of Kokrajhar Medical College Hospital, Kokrajhar, on examination of the petitioner, having returned negative reports for both the conditions, i.e. Kyphosis and Lumbar Scoliosis, the findings of the constituted Medical Boards of the respondents are rendered doubtful. He

¶44

Page No.# 5/7

¶45

further submits that the reports of the constituted Medical Boards would also not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as a Specialist in the Orthopedics was not included, therein.

¶46

In the above premises, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be passed by this Court requiring the detailed examination of the petitioner by a Review Medical Board to be constituted by the respondents, with a Specialist in Orthopedics.

¶47

Per contra, Mrs. S Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner, not having alleged any malafide against the Doctors carrying out his medical examination i.e. the Doctors constituting the Detailed Medical Examination Board as well as the Review Medical Examination Board, the contentions raised by the findings against the said Boards would not mandate an acceptance by this Court.

¶48

Mrs. S Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 738741/2022, involving issues similar to the one arising in the present proceeding, had observed that the decision of the Review Medical Examination Board should be treated as final.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶50

The reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner as medically unfit, by the Detailed Medical Examination Board and the Review Medical Examination Board, have been noticed, hereinabove. The reasons assigned, when viewed, in the light of the opinion rendered by the Doctors of Kokrajhar Medical College Hospital, Kokrajhar, this Court finds that contradictory medical opinions have come on record while the Medical Board of the respondents have opined that the petitioner is suffering from a condition known as Kyphosis along with the related condition of Lumbar

¶51

Page No.# 6/7

¶52

Scoliosis, the petitioner was opined by the doctors of Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar, to have been found to be not suffering from the said conditions. The diametrically opposite medical opinions, having come on record, this Court is not in a position to ascertain the actual physical condition of the petitioner and is of the considered view that the petitioner is required to be subjected to a fresh medical examination by a Board constituted by the respondents, Accordingly, the respondents are required to constitute a Medical Board with a Specialist Doctor in the field of Orthopedics for a fresh examination of the petitioner after also subjecting the petitioner to radiological examination.

¶53

In view of the above, Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission (SSC) i.e. the respondent no. 3, shall forward the petitioner to the competent authority for carrying out a Review Medical Examination, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove. The Review Medical Examination Board shall, thereafter, examine the petitioner in the presence of a specialist in the field of Orthopedics and, thereafter, submit its medical opinion in the matter. Basing on the said reports of the Review Medical Examination Board, consequential action, as may be called for in the matter, shall be so taken by the respondent authorities. In the event, the petitioner is found to be medically fit, the respondent authorities shall ensure that he is recruited to the Force to which he would otherwise be permissible to be so recruited in terms of the merit position, obtained by him, in the connected selection process. It is clarified that even if the petitioner is found to be medically fit by the Review Medical Examination Board, his appointment to the service involved shall be so made, only in the event, he comes within the merit position mandated for such appointment.

¶54

The petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the respondent no. 3 along with copies of the reports of the doctors of Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital, Kokrajhar and a certified copy of this order.

¶55

Page No.# 7/7

¶56

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 (Fifteen) days with effect from the date the petitioner appears before the Review Medical Examination Board, now required to be so constituted.

¶57

With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶58

The records produced by Mrs. S Baruah, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, be returned forthwith.

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

Upendra Chouhan v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Chouhan v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaganath Gojirel Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pranjit Talukdar and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Saroj Upadhyaya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pinjira Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bipul Kanti Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Shams Uddin Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.