Ranjumala Devi Vs the Union of India

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RECRUITMENT EAST BLOCK EAST BLOCK 107 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI 66 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI 23

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GHY 23 6:THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD CT GD RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2025 GC CRPF AMERIGOG GHY 2

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK

¶14

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

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

09.02.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. HR Ahmed, learned counsel or the petitioner and Ms. S Baruah,

¶20

learned CGC for the respondents.

¶21

The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered in the Review Medical Examination Board-I Report of the Presiding Officer, RME Board-1, RME-CT(GD)Exam-2025, Centre CAPFs CH BSF, Patgaon, Guwahati,

¶22

wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit.

¶23

The materials on record reflect that in pursuance to a notice issued for

¶24

recruitment of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

SSF, Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025, the petitioner had 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 22.11.2025 concluded that the petitioner was unfit on the ground that the petitioner had (i) Hump/swelling over back of trunk upper part in midline and (ii) Spina bifida D2&D3 Level.

¶27

It is the further case of the petitioner that after the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner unfit, on account of Hump/swelling over back of trunk upper part in midline and Spina bifida D2&D3 Level, the petitioner approached the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital and the Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital had given an opinion on 22.12.2025 that the petitioner is fit from neurological point of view.. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 08.01.2026 before the respondent authorities, through registered post. However, the authority has refused to consider the same by letter dated 19.01.2026.

¶28

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

the parties and has also perused the materials on record.

¶31

This Court also has taken note of that the petitioner upon obtaining the medical opinion from the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati had approached the Respondent Authorities by submitting a representation dated 08.01.2026 which has been denied to consider by letter dated 19.01.2026 and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶32

This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the view that the Authority may consider the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that there are varied medical opinions rendered by the Review Medical Board of the Respondent Authorities as well as the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati.

¶33

Be that as it may, the petitioner is always at liberty to submit a fresh 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.

¶34

Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The petitioner is given the liberty to submit a fresh representation before the Review Medical Board of the respondents seeking a re-consideration on the basis of the medical opinions

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

available with the petitioner as discussed above. (ii). In the circumstance, a fresh representation is submitted within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, 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.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Ranjumala Devi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjumala Devi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupeswar Saikia and 55 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 20 Ors.

MD Shoriful Islam Vs the State of Assam and Others

Ajit Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and othrs

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajib Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Sri Anand Kumar Pradhan Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.