Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Saidul Ali S/o Jaynur Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging medical fitness opinion in recruitment (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's consideration of parties' submissions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. limits of judicial review on medical opinions (Para 7) |
| 4. writ petition not a suitable mechanism here (Para 8) |
| 5. petitioner can seek reconsideration through representation (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The present writ proceeding is filed challenging the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Examination Board-2 of the Centre- CAPFs, CH BSF, Patgaon wherein it was opined that the petitioner is unfit.
3. The materials on record show that in pursuance to a notice issued for recruitment of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025, the petitioner 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 requeste
Judicial review of medical fitness decisions requires deference to specialized medical assessments; courts cannot intervene without proper procedural adherence.
The Court cannot review medical opinions in recruitment cases under Article 226 without prior representations to the concerned authorities.
Judicial review under Article 226 cannot substitute medical opinions unless grounded in irrationality or malice; petitioners are encouraged to pursue reevaluation through proper channels.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review specialized medical opinions regarding fitness for recruitment and encourages petitioners to seek reconsideration through proper channels.
The court cannot substitute its view for medical determinations made by competent boards, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance for reconsideration.
A court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with medical opinions rendered by competent authorities unless there is a gross error or illegality in their assessment.
Writ jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing medical board decisions; petitioners must seek reconsideration through appropriate channels, allowing specialized bodies to assess fitness.
Court cannot review medical opinions from authorities; petitioners must seek reconsideration through appropriate representations.
The court cannot intervene in medical fitness evaluations from established boards unless compelling evidence exists, upholding the integrity of medical assessments.
Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit courts to override medical decisions; procedural compliance is required before approaching the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
