GUWAHATI, India, June 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is being aggrieved by the report of the Review Medical Examination Board, whereby the petitioner was held unfit due to presence of hesitation cut mark on his left forearm. In response to the recruitment notice dated 05.09.2024, petitioner participated in the recruitment drive for the post of Constable GD in CAPFs. After qualifying in the written Computer Based Examination, the petitioner appeared for the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test and succeeded the same. Thereafter, he was presented for medical examination. In the Detailed Medical Examination, which was held on 05.12.2025, he was declared unfit due to presence of "hesitation cut mark on left forearm". Thereafter, he was again reexamined by the Review Medical Board - 2 on 09.12.2025 and the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination Board (DME) were sustained and the Review Medical Board considered him unfit on the ground of presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm.

3. The petitioner thereafter, presented himself before the Gauhati Medical College and was examined by the Department of Dermatology and the dermatological report indicates that the patient namely the writ petitioner did not have any active skin disease at present therefore, he is fit from the dermatology side.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the rejection of the writ petitioner by the authorities was incorrect and therefore, calls for interference.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that in terms of the Guidelines for medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, May 2015 one of the grounds for rejection is the presence of hesitation cut mark. There is no dispute that in both the medical examination, namely DME and RME the finding was the same that there was a presence of hesitation cut mark on the left forearm.

6. The matter was heard and on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be disposed of in similar directions in terms of the order passed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6231 of 2024, the matter was taken up for disposal. Later when the order was dictated, it was seen that the facts in this particular case are different from the facts and circumstances of the writ petition in which the order was passed vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6231 of 2024. Under such circumstances, the matter was listed for hearing.

7. Today when the matter is heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to persuade the Court that the matter be remanded back for reconsideration by placing the petitioner before the appropriate department in the Government Hospital, namely the Department of Psychiatry, to evaluate the petitioner as to whether he suffers from any mental illness.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x82%2FlkkwTCPY7HF7Z34JuRiYBbQQHyZYwXIua%2BXXwp2M&caseno=WP(C)/191/2026&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010288432025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.