Anamika Mondal v. Union Of India And ORS.

30/06 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction AD/69/18 Appellate Side 266312 WPA/28091/2025 NANDY (DO) ANAMIKA MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Mr. Debasish Kundu, Advocate Mr. Bidan Modak, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Shounak Ghosh, Advocate ......for the Respondent

1. In terms of the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated December 15, 2025, the Medical Board of the Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Kalyani, has submitted a report which is taken on record.

2. In terms of such report, the Medical Board has opined that the results on ocular examination were found to be normal and that there is no defect in distant vision. The petitioner has been found to have a vision of VA < 6/6 /6/6 in both eyes. The petitioner is medically fit without any defect in distant vision.

3. The petitioner's case is that she had been refused appointment as a Constable in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), on the ground that he had a defect in her distant vision. The defects were found on medical examination at the first instance on November 21, 2025, to be VA < 6/12 /6/12, and by the Review Medical Board to be VA < 6/9 /6/9.

4. As it now appears from the report/opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS, the petitioner does not have any such deficiency in distant vision and is thus qualified to be considered for the post of constable in CAPFs.

5. The respondent no. 2 is directed to issue the requisite recommendation in favour of the petitioner to the

P a g e | 2 concerned force (CAPF) by 31.08.2026 to ensure the appointment of the petitioner as a constable thereat.

6. With the afore-stated directions, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)