Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 21 January, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010269432025
2026:GAU-AS:721
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7014/2025
MUKTAR ALI
S/O- NOWSAD ALI, RESIDENT OF-VILLAGE NO-3, BHANDARA, P.O.-
BHANDARA BAZAR, P.S.-MANIKPUR DISTRICT -BONGAIGAON, ASSAM,
PIN -783390
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK NO. 12
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI - 110003.
3:THE PRESIDING OFFICER PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST (PST) PHYSICAL
EFFICIENCY TEST (PET) BOARD
RECTT. OF CT/GD-2025
GC CRPF GUWAHATI
PATGAON
AZARA
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER
EXECUTIVE BOARD
DV/DME/RME-CT(GD) EXAM-2025
CENTRE-CAPFS CH BSF
Page No.# 2/7
PATGAON
AZARA
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781017.
5:THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BORAD
CENTRE-CAPFS CH BSF
PATGAON
AZARA
KAMRUP
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781017
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Azad, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Baruah, CGC
Date on which judgment was reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf Page No.# 3/7 of the petitioner. Ms. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned opinion of the Review Medical Examination Board-II dated 24.11.2025 whereby the petitioner's candidature was rejected as unfit on account of Vitiligo, on the ground that it is an autoimmune disorder with unpredictable prognosis.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that on 05.09.2024 a notice was issued for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025. The petitioner participated in the said recruitment process. At the time of the Detailed Medical Examination carried out on 19.11.2025 the petitioner was declared unfit on account of 2 (two) diseases i.e. i) Varicose Veins and ii) Vitiligo around the anal canal. The petitioner thereupon sought for review. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati wherein the concerned Dermatologist gave an opinion on 22.11.2025. The opinion reads as under:
"The patient has a depigmented muscular lesion around anal region (Vitiligo), which is a non-contagious and treatable condition. The patient does not have any other signs of any acute or chronic illness at present and is otherwise fit to perform his duties"
Page No.# 4/7
4. From the above quoted opinion, it appears that the petitioner was diagnosed with Vitiligo, which was non-contagious disease and in a treatable condition. It was also opined that the petitioner does not have any other signs of any acute or chronic illness at present and the petitioner was further fit to perform his duties. Subsequent thereto, the Review Medical Board examination was conducted wherein it was held that the petitioner was otherwise fit with regard to Varicose Veins but was declared unfit on account of Vitiligo as it is an autoimmune disorder with unpredictable prognosis. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. The materials on record reveal that when the matter was initially listed before this Court on 10.12.2025, instructions were sought for.
6. Today, Ms. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed before this Court a set of instructions dated 09.01.2026 wherein it is mentioned at paragraph No. 4 that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to apply for the Review Medical Examination and the petitioner availed the said opportunity and reported on 20.11.2025. The Review Medical Board after examination referred the petitioner to the GMCH, Guwahati for consultation with the Skin department and the Skin Consultant after required examination diagnosed "Vitiligo and prescribed medication". It was further mentioned that there was a confirmation of the diagnosis of Page No.# 5/7 the Detailed Medical Examination Board. Further to that, it was also mentioned that the Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder and is sometime associated with autoimmune and inflammatory disease such as Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, Type-I diabetes mellitus, psoriasis, Addison's disease, pernicious anaemia, alopecia aerate, systemic lupus erythematosus and celiac disease. It can involve multi organs. Prognosis of this disease is not predictable. The onset of 'Vitiligo' often occurs in younger individuals and progresses for life, resulting in a heavy burden of disease and decreased quality of life. It was also mentioned that there is no cure for Vitiligo, but several treatment options are available. The said instructions are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter "X".
7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
8. Attention was drawn to the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test for recruitment in CAPFs, NSG & AR, 2015 wherein at Clause 6(19) chronic skin disease like vitiligo, Leprosy, SLE, Eczema and chronic extensive fungal dermatitis have been mentioned to be general grounds for rejection.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by the Page No.# 6/7 learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others dated 16.01.2025 wherein directions were issued to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board to assess, as to whether, the Vitiligo was chronic in nature or not.
10. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions and has also perused the materials to record.
11. This Court does not have the expertise, as to whether, the Vitiligo presently suffered by the petitioner is chronic in nature or not. Taking into account the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra), it is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 5 should be directed to reassess, as to whether, the disease suffered by the petitioner is chronic in nature or not. The Court also finds it pertinent at this stage to take note of Clause 6(d) of the Guidelines for Review Medical Examination (RME) in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles which, being relevant is reproduced herein under:
"(d) Review Medical Board may obtain opinion of concerned specialists or super specialists of Govt. Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt. Therefore, in cases of rejection in review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/ Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centers, whichever and wherever applicable."
Page No.# 7/7
12. It is the opinion of this Court that as to whether the petitioner presently suffers from any chronic disease must be decided on the touchstone of Clause 6(d) of the Guidelines for Review Medical Examination (RME).
13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The respondent No. 5 is directed to re-examine the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits a certified copy of the present judgment in order to assess as to whether the disease presently suffered by the petitioner is chronic in nature or not. Such decision shall be taken by taking into account Clause 6(d) of the Guidelines for Review Medical Examination (RME).
(ii) The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of the present judgment to the respondent No. 5 within 10 (ten) days from the date of the present judgment.
JUDGE Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.01.22 17:02:13 +05'30' Comparing Assistant