The right to employment is a constitutional guarantee that must be upheld, ensuring candidates are treated fairly in recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts:

1. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (in short “CAPFs”) SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination for the year 2024.

2. The petitioner after having qualified the initial stages of the said examination was medically examined in the Detail Medical Examination (in short, “DME”). The petitioner was declared unfit due to the left arm “carrying angle” being less than 10 degree.

3. The petitioner applied for Review Medical Examination (in short “RME”). At the RME Board, after considering the X-Ray, it was found that the “carrying angle” in right elbow joint being 8 degree and in left elbow joint being 7 degree. The normal “carrying angle” is between 10 degree to15 degree. The petitioner was declared unfit on such ground.

4. There is a detailed instruction in the medical guidelines for recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles being the revised guidelines as on May, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as, said guidelines).

5. On perusal of the report of the DME, it is crystal clear that “carrying angle” in left arm being less than 10 degree is a disqualification. The RME Board has found the “carrying angle” in the right elbow joint being 8 degree while in the left elbow joint being 7 degree. The normal “carrying angle” is 10 degree to 15 degree. The petitioner says that since the “carrying angle” in both the arms is less than 10 degree. The petitioner should have been declared fit.

6. The petitioner says that the petitioner had been referred to by the RME Board prior to the holding of the RME to any Government Hospital/CGHS/Ayushman Empanelled Hospital, Durgapur for X-Ray of left elbow joint, to measure “carrying angle” and opinion in respect thereof.

7. The petitioner was taken to Gouri Devi Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Durgapur (hereinafter referred to as, the said hospital) by the respondents. The said hospital found that the “carrying angle” of the left elbow joint is 15 degree. The said hospital also opined that “no obvious bony fracture is seen, joint space appears normal, no obvious soft tissue abnormality is seen”. The petitioner says that after considering the said X-Ray , the RME came to the conclusion that the “carrying angle” of right elbow is 8 degree while in the left elbow is 7 degree when on the basis of the same X-Ray the said hospital had given a different finding. Thus, the opinions of the medical experts were in variance

8. The petitioner questions the findings of the RME Board apparently on the basis of the X-Ray report of the said hospital, where “carrying angle” has been found to be 15 degree i.e., within the normal zone. There is as such a discrepancy as to the measurement of carrying angle between that given by the said hospital and the RME.

9. In the above facts, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following reliefs:-

a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authority, their men, agents or subordinates to show cause as to why the order of unfit dated 28.10.2024 by the Detailed Medical Examination Board and order of unfit dated 01.11.2024 by the Review Medical Examination Board should not be quashed forthwith; and/or set-aside forthwith;

b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent, their men, agent and subordinate to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be declared as fit in medical examinati