SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1077

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Sri Dilwar Hussain, S/o. Faruk Ahmed – Petitioner 
Versus
The Union Of India And Others – Respondents
WP(C)/115 of 2026
Decided On : 14-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Roy, M. Hossain, Mr. M.H. Laskar
For the Respondent: DY.S.G.I., Mr. S.S. Roy.

Courts may intervene in recruitment processes to mandate re-evaluation by medical boards when there is a prima facie discrepancy between a disqualifying physical assessment and objective diagnostic evidence, ensuring determinations of fitness are based on the totality of medical records.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Recruitment - Medical Fitness - Judicial Review - When a candidate is declared unfit in a medical examination for employment, but diagnostic records provide prima facie evidence of normal health conditions, the court may direct a review medical board to re-evaluate the findings in light of all provided medical documentation - Fairness in recruitment necessitates that authorities consider secondary medical opinions and imaging reports to determine actual suitability for the role rather than relying solely on a cursory physical observation. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner participated in a recruitment process for a government force. After passing all stages, the candidate was declared medically unfit based on alleged anatomical asymmetry observed during the physical examination. Subsequent diagnostic imaging reports indicated that the skeletal and tissue density were normal. Despite this, the medical board upheld the initial disqualification without addressing the compatibility of these findings with the requirements for the specific post.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the diagnostic X-ray report did not reflect any functional infirmity or physical disability. Consequently, the court held that the representation of the candidate supported by independent medical reports warranted a fresh consideration by the review board to ensure the decision-making process was neither arbitrary nor based on incomplete medical synthesis.

Issues: The main issues concerned the sustainability of a medical rejection in the presence of conflicting diagnostic reports and the court's authority to mandate a re-examination of a candidate by a medical board.

Ratio Decidendi: When a medical decision for disqualification is based on physical findings that appear to be contradicted by objective diagnostic imagery, the authorities are obligated to review the entirety of the available medical records. A court of law is empowered to direct such a meaningful consideration to prevent arbitrary exclusion and ensure administrative fairness.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; the petitioner is permitted to file a representation for a fresh medical evaluation to be completed by the review board within sixty days.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving medical fitness disputes in recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requirement for re-examination when medical evidence appears inconclusive. (Para 4 , 5)
3. disposal of the writ petition. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, applied for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination for the year-2025. The petitioner claims to assert eligibility for the post, thus participating in the recruitment process. The petitioner was declared successful in both the Computer Based Test as well as the Physical Standard Test (PST)/Physical Efficiency Test (PET). However, during the Medical Examinations, i.e. Detailed Medical Examination, he was found unfit on the grounds of (i) Left Shoulder lower than right and (ii) Left shoulder griddle asymmetry. After DME, he was sent for opinion before the Silchar Medical College and Hospital which also returned a finding that the Right Scapula is at higher level. The Civil Hospital had also undertaken an X-ray where the X-Ray report reflects the following:

(i) Bony outline and density appear normal; (ii) the visualized joint spaces appear normal; and (iii) the soft tissue shadow appears normal.

3. All these reports were placed before the Review Medical Examination (RME) and the RME sustained the report of the DME and rejected the petitioner. Although the petitioner was examined by the Silchar College and Hospital, Department of Orthopedics and they have noted the conditions of the petitioner’s health condition namely Right Scapula at higher level and muscle power is found to be normal. The fact is that there is no opinion rendered by the Silchar Medical College and Hospital although the X-Ray report is also available that as to whether the petitioner is or is not fit for employment under the CAPF.

4. In the opinion of the Court where there is a medical opinion sought for and prima facie it appears to the Court that the X-Ray report conducted does not reflect any infirmity.

5. Upon perusal of the report, which is the part of the record, which are placed before the Court, the Court is of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to file a representation before the respondent No. 5-Review Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioner along with all medical records available in the records and the report of the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Orthopedic Department. If the petitioner is otherwise found suitable in terms of the examination undertaken at the Silchar Medical College and Hospital then consequential orders for selection and appointment of the writ petitioner should be issued. The petitioner is permitted to file a representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such a representation, we direct the RME will conduct the medical review within further period of 60 days therefrom.

6. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of. Interim order if any stands merged.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top