The judgment established the importance of valid medical examinations and the approval process under RMSAF 1983 in determining an officer's fitness for duty and subsequent release from service.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was commissioned as Pilot Officer on 14th August, 1992 with the Indian Air Force. It was a short service Commission for a period of ten years. After one year he was promoted to the post of Flying officer. However, in 1993 he suffered Generalised seizure. On examination by medical board, the authorities on 7th October, 1993 declared him to be temporary unfit for flying duties by placing him in low medical category P4 (T-6 ). However, the category of the petitioner was upgraded and he was declared medically fit to perform the duties of Co-Pilot vide fitness Certificate dated 24th December, 1995. He thereafter continued to perform the duties of Co-Pilot till 2nd July, 1996. He was again examined by a duly constituted Medical Board for this purpose at Air Force central Medical Establishment (hereinafter referred to as AFCME, for short ). As a result of this medical examination, Board again declared him temporarily unfit for flying Pilot s duties and recommended for ground duties not involving severe physical and mental stress. This categorisation was done when the petitioner was found to be suffering from :

(A)SEIZURE Disorder;

(B) Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Treated) and

(C) Cervical Lymphadenitis (Treated ). The petitioner does not dispute this medical examination held on 2nd July, 1996 and the result thereof.

( 2 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage itself that as per the respondent, the Director-General Medical service (Air) who is the competent authority to approve the proceedings, considered the facts of recurrence of seizure and starting of anti-seizure drug which was to be continued for a minimum period of 2-3 years and came to the conclusion/opinion that the petitioner was unlikely to regain his flying medical category. Accordingly, he amended the medical category of the petitioner to A-4 (Permanent), G-4 (T-24) as per which the petitioner was classified as permanently unfit for a-1, A-2 and A-3 duties . Simply put he was classified as permanently unfit for flying duties. Furthermore, according to the respondent, this categorisation was sent to the petitioner which was recorded in the following terms: "permanently unfit for F (P) duties. Permanently unfit for A1, A2 and A3. Fit for ground duties not involving severe physical and mental stress. The appeal should reach Air HQ (RKP) through The president AFCME by 30 July". This categorisation is disputed by the petitioner and therefore we shall revert to this aspect at the appropriate stage. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner received letter dated 12th July, 1996 informing him that he had been categorised as permanently unfit for flying. This is obvious from the fact that the petitioner had made appeal dated 26th July, 1996 for medical Board vide his letter dated 26th July, 1996 wherein he has referred to letter dated 12th July, 1996 as per which he had been declared permanently unfit for flying and requested for reconsideration for change-over to temporary category.

( 3 ) SINCE the petitioner was declared unfit for air duties permanently, with recommendation for ground duties his case was processed and vide letter dated 4th september, 1996 he was asked to give his willingness. In response thereto vide Certificate dated 19th october, 1996, the petitioner certified that he was willing for transfer to Administrative or Logistic branch as mentioned in the Air HQ Letter dated 4th september, 1996. His Commanding Officer also recommended his case observing on the same Certificate that he was a "smart officer, very suitable for logistic/administrative branch". However, while his case was processed in this manner, strangely by communication dated 14th November, 1996, the petitioner s unit was informed that the petitioner had expressed his unwillingness for transfer to ground duties. Thereafter, vide another letter dated 25th november, 1996, the petitioner was asked to report to afcme for his review Medical Board which was however not done. The