Bavaramma v. Government of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36419 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

BAVARAMMA D/O. BASAVANTRAYA PATIL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT HAGARATAGI VILLAGE HAGARATGI POST, SHORAPUR YADAGIRI DISTRICT-585237 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING (DOPT) REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS 3RD FLOOR. A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI, DELHI-110011.

¶2THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE AT BLOCK NO-12, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶3THE PRESIDING OFFICER, REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD (RME) CT/GD SSC-2025, BANGALORE CENTRE

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:10900( WP(No.(36419(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( BSF,COMPLEX,,YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560063., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,ANUPAMA,HEGDE,,CGC,FOR,R1,TO,R3), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF, CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,WRIT,QUASHING,,THE,IMPUGNED, ORDER, ENDORSEMENT, DATED:, 22.11.2025, ISSUED, BY, R3, PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-A,AND,DIRECT,THE,R3,TO,DECLARE, PETITIONER, WITH, ROLL, NO., 9005003291, AS, QUALIFIED, IN, RME, FOR, POSTS, NOTIFIED, VIDE, NOTIFICATION, , DATED,

05.09.2024,BY,R2,PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-B,AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, , ORAL(ORDER( This, writ, petition, is, filed, under, Article, 226, of, the, Constitution,of,India,,challenging,the,endorsement,dated,

22.11.2025,vide,Annexure-A,,whereby,the,petitioner,has, been, declared, as, not, qualified, for, the, post, of, Constable,

(GD),in,the,Central,Armed,Police,Forces.,

2., The, case, of, the, petitioner, is, that, the, second, respondent, issued, a, notification, dated, 05.09.2024, vide, Annexure-B, for, filling, up, the, posts, of, Constable, (GD), in, the, Central, Armed, Police, Forces., Pursuant, to, the, said,

notification, the petitioner had applied for the said post and appeared for the Computer-Based Test and was successful. Thereafter, as per the notification, the Physical Standard Test was conducted, wherein she stood qualified. Subsequently, she was referred for Detailed Medical Evaluation (DME). The DME declared her unfit on account of cut marks on her left forearm. Thereafter, she was referred for Review Medical Evaluation (RME). The RME, in turn, referred the case for the opinion of a doctor from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the said opinion is produced at Annexure-R5. The relevant portion of the same is extracted below: "Currently, no history of any psychiatric symptoms or any personality trait that would be of concern or any self-harm risk."

¶3Thereafter, by the impugned endorsement, the petitioner's case has been rejected on the ground that she is unfit.

¶4As per the Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination, in cases where the Review Medical Board rejects the candidature of any candidate, the finding shall be corroborated by a confirmatory test, investigation, or the opinion of a Specialist or Super Specialist from a Government Hospital. The relevant portion is extracted below: "6. Guidelines for Review Medical Boards: ……..

(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 within confirmatory tests/ investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centers, whichever and wherever applicable."

¶5The opinion of the specialist doctor is extracted above. In the said report, the specialist has not stated whether the petitioner is fit or unfit for recruitment to the

said post. Even the impugned endorsement is not in corroboration with the report submitted by the specialist. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶6Accordingly, the following order:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated

22.11.2025 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed.

(iii) The respondents are directed to re-do the RME for the petitioner from a Specialist from the NIMHANS Hospital, and take a decision in accordance with law, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39