Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 August, 2025
04. 08.08.2025
Court No.8
(Tanmoy)
FMA/90/2025
IA NO: CAN/1/2025
BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharya
Mr. Debarik Kundu
...for the appellant.
Mr. Koushik Ray
Mr. Sourav Sengupta (VC)
...for UOI.
1. Learned Counsel for the respective parties
are present.
2. With the consent of the parties hearing of
the matter commenced.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant preferred his candidature for
the post of Constable (Cook) in Central Reserved
Police Forces (CRPF). During the course of
selection the appellant was subjected to medical
examination on July 15, 2024. Originally, the
Medical Board examined the appellant and found
him unfit for four reasons mentioned hereinbelow:
(Annexure „P-5‟)
i) Overweight (BMI - 27.8).
ii) Defective colour vision.
iii) Keloid at chest.
iv) Extensive fungal infection over
buttocks & thighs.
2
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a
review and was subjected to examination by
Review Medical Board on the next day i.e. July 16,
2024. The Review Medical Board also declared the
appellant as unfit on account of "(1) Overweight
(BMI - 27.8, (2) Defective colour vision, (3) Keloid
at chest and (4) Extensive fungal infection on the
buttocks & thighs."
5. Thereafter, the appellant got himself
examined before IPGMER & SSKMH-Centre of
Excellence, Kolkata - 700020. The certificate/
document issued on July 22, 2024 is relied upon
to contend that the condition of the patient is held
to be non-communicable and the present
condition will not affect the physical health of the
patient.
6. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the
weight measured by he said Hospital as 72 Kgs.
7. The sheet anchor of argument of learned
Counsel for the appellant is based on the
Guidelines For Review Medical Examination. By
placing heavy reliance on clause 2 of the said
guidelines it is contended that the rejection needs
to be on the ground which is corroborated with
confirmatory tests/investigations/ opinion of
specialists/super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/
Medical Colleges. The disqualification relating to
3
skin disease is in the realm of the expert opinion
but the members in the original and Review
Medical Board were not experts and no opinion as
per any expert was obtained. For this simple
reason, both the original assessment and review
assessment are liable to be interfered with.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent/Union
of India submits that the document dated August 24, 2005 (Annexure „O-1‟) shows that the decision of the Review Medical Board is final and binding on the candidate. Apart from this, he placed reliance on Review Medical Examination (page 10 of affidavit-in-opposition) and urged that in clause 15.2(iv) the provision employs the word „may‟ which gives discretion to the Medical Board whether or not expert/specialized opinion is to be obtained or not.
9. Learned Counsel for the parties could not point out in specific as to what was the outer weight limit for the post of Constable (Cook). They are directed to file the relevant eligibility clause/advertisement/provision which can throw light on this aspect within seven days from date.
10. List after a week.
(Sujoy Paul, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)