WP(C) 6351/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned CGC. The petitioner, who is an aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF, is aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Board including Review Medica l Board, in declaring him medically unfit. According to the respondents, the pet itioner although had qualified in all the events up to written examination but h e could not be appointed due to medical unfitness. In paragraphs 6 & 7 of the co unter affidavit, it has been stated thus :- 6. That the contention or the petitioner in paragraph 3 or writ petition is denied. It is submitted that around 177 candidates submitted appeals to the App ellate Authority i.e. DIGP, CRPF along with medical fitness certificates/ clinic al report/ pathological report etc. from various Govt. Hospitals relating to the ir fitness for Review Medical Examination. Further as per remarks available in A ppendix - ’F’ USG Machine or B.P. Hospital, Nagaon it is not in order and as suc h investigation was conducted at STARLAB, NAGAON on 01.01.2010. Further as per r eport of STARLAB, the sizes of right and left testicules are 35.0 mm and 37.2 mm respectively. Moreover as per report or Gauhati Medical College & Hospital with the writ petitioner length of right testicule is 27 mm and left testicule is 34 mm respectively. Here both the reports are contradictory and as such it created doubt on the authenticity of the reports given by STARLAB. In such a situation the contention of the petitioner that he is not suffering from right testicular atrophy is doubtful one and further it is worth mentioning that the Doctor of GM CH has not given any certificate as required and as given by B.P. Civil Hospital , Nagaon. As such the claim of petitioner that he was declared fit by GMCH is no t supported by documentary evidence. 7. That the contention of the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petitio n is denied. After clinical examination ( i.e. based on Gauhati Medical College Hospital Report available with writ petitioner) the Review Medical Board has dec lared him unfit due to testicular atrophy noticed in right side. Further the con tention of petitioner that the report of GMC is normal is denied. On the other hand, the records produced by Mr. Ahmed, learned CGC, conta in the letter dated 8.8.2011 addressed to the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF by IG (Me dical/Medical Supdt.), CRPF, has revealed that in the Review Medical Board, ther e was no Surgical specialist. That apart, the initial medical examination was al so conducted by Orthopedic Surgon. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing to con duct a Review Medical Examination associating an expert on the subject of purpor ted medical disability. As indicated above, in the letter dated 8.8.2011, there was no surgical specialist in the Review Medical Board. Depending upon the outcome of the re-examination of the petitioner by th e Review Medical Board, the respondents will take further course of action in th e matter. Let the Review Medical Examination be carried out as expeditiously as po ssible, preferably within one month, for which the respondents may give due inti mation to the petitioner. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands dis posed of, without however, any order as to costs.