Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Aminul Islam, S/o. Taijuddin – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances Pensions, Department Of Personnel Training – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners found unfit for recruitment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court lacks authority to review medical conclusions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petition not entertained; representation advised. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's final directions and observations. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. S. Baruah, 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners participated in the said recruitment process. While carrying out the medical examination, it was found that the petitioners were not fit for appointment as a Constable (GD). The petitioners thereupon requested for a review. The Review Medical Board by the opinion rendered on 25.11
The court lacks jurisdiction to review specialized medical opinions regarding fitness for recruitment and encourages petitioners to seek reconsideration through proper channels.
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.
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 cannot substitute its view for medical determinations made by competent boards, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance for reconsideration.
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.
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
