##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010216832024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/14/2026

1.UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),

NEW DELHI-110001.

2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

ASSAM RIFLES

SHILLONG MEGHALAYA- 793011.

3: THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT

STAFF OFFICER-1 RECRUITMENT DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM

RIFLES SHILLONG-11

4: THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT

ASSAM RIFLES TRANSIT CAMP KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN -78102

VERSUS

EX TC 62091 RECT GD SATBIR SINGH

S/O SRI KASHI RAM, VILL- SHIVDHANPURA P.O. SHIVDHANPUR DIST.

HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN- 136042

For the Appellant(s) : Ms. A. Gayan, Central Government Counsel.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Pathak, Advocate.

Page No.# 2/5

B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

21.05.2026

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government

Counsel for the appellants/Union of India & 3 Ors. and Mr. K.P. Pathak,

learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

The respondent had been provisionally selected as a General

Duty (GD) Rifleman in the year 2001 under the Assam Rifles, a paramilitary

force under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. However,

such selection was a conditional one, subject to his passing a

final/confirmatory medical examination.

During the confirmatory medical check-up at the relevant

medical facility, the respondent was declared medically unfit because of

a medical condition described as DNS-RT Severe Airways Inadequate;

perhaps the medical unfitness was for the reason of Deviated Nasal

Septum on the right side with airway obstruction.

Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Advocate for the respondent has

submitted that this was an ailment which was very temporary and could

have been rectified even by a small surgical intervention. Nonetheless,

the respondent was discharged from the Force on 31.10.2001, which

order was based on the recommendation of Invalidation Medical Board

and, precisely for this reason, namely, his not coming out successful in the

Page No.# 3/5

medical check-up, he could not complete his basic training and,

therefore, was not held to have entered the Force for all practical

purposes.

The discharge of the respondent was questioned by him before

this Court vide WP(C) No.4710/2008, which was disposed off with a

direction to the Assam Rifles to constitute a fresh Appellate Medical

Board, preferably including a Specialist in the relevant field of disability to

re-examine the respondent for his medical fitness for his confirmation as

the Rifleman in the Force.

The respondent was, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court,

examined by the Appellate Medical Board on 03.10.2012 but he was

again found unfit for the same medical reason. The rejection of the claim

of the respondent was communicated to him on 27.12.2012.

After about 4(four) years, the respondent preferred a fresh writ

petition [WP(C) No.5172/2016] mounting a challenge to the

communication of discharge dated 27.12.2012.

The learned Single Judge noticed that the Appellate Medical

Board had examined the respondent on 03.10.2012 but there was a

Specialist’s opinion on record, which was of a later date i.e. 05.10.2012.

It was thus argued by the respondent before the learned Single

Judge that flouting the directions of this Court, the opinion regarding

medical disability of the respondent was arrived at by the Appellate

Medical Board in the absence of an opinion of the Specialist.

On that score alone, the learned Single Judge quashed the

Page No.# 4/5

order of discharge dated 27.12.2012 and directed for induction of the

respondent, after allowing him to undergo the requisite training and such

induction, it was observed, would be subject to his passing the test with

relaxation in the age requirement.

We have noticed that all these have consumed time and 26

years have passed since the discharge of the respondent.

To be fair to the parties, an opinion of the Ap