Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Nanda Kishor Barman, Son of Shri Keshab Ch. Barman – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By The Home Secretary, Government of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of medical rejection in recruitment (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding rejection criteria (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of guidelines and conflicting medical evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. requirements for specific medical justification under guidelines (Para 11) |
| 5. directions for independent review and final determination (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. The petitioner before this Court had submitted his candidature in response to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authority for appointment in the post of Constable (GD) under the Central Armed Police Forces. The petitioner had successfully cleared the written test and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST). However, on medical examination by the DME i.e. the Detailed Medical Examination undertaken by the BSF authorities, the writ petitioner was declared unfit due to “infected wart left ear lobule”. This report was issued on 25.11.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was medically evaluated by a private
When medical boards reject candidates based on conditions not clearly disqualifying under guidelines, and where conflicting medical opinions exist, the board must provide specific findings justifying....
The court cannot substitute its view for medical determinations made by competent boards, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance for reconsideration.
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 upheld that mere presence of keloids does not guarantee fitness for service; operational risks and examiners' expert opinions carry significant weight.
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.
Rejection of a candidate based on Keloid formation requires evidence of interference with equipment; mere presence is insufficient under recruitment guidelines.
The decisions of a Review Medical Board in recruitment processes are final and can only be challenged under exceptional circumstances, such as procedural violations or malafides.
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
