The central legal point established in the judgment is that denial of re-examination in a medical employment dispute may result in injustice and should be considered based on the qualifications and assessments of the individual.

1. The Petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, seeks to challenge letter dated 1st September, 2007 (impugned letter) issued by the National Aviation Company of India (erstwhile Air India Ltd.), the Respondent herein, whereby the Petitioner has been found unfit in his medical examination held by the Respondent in Mumbai.

2.The brief facts leading to the present petition are that:

a.During the month of August, 2006 the Respondent invited

applications for the position of Cadet Pilot from Indian Nationals. The last date for receipt of applications was stated to be the 10th October, 2006.

.b. The Respondent had made it clear in the invitation to apply that the selected candidates would have to undergo medical examination by the Company Medical Officer of the Respondent so as to meet the Respondent•V_ PHGLFDO_ standards and also the Class-I Medical by CME-IAM of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

.c. The Petitioner applied to the Respondent and was asked to take a written examination on 14th January, 2007 and complete various other formalities for the writing of the said examination.

.d. The Petitioner successfully qualified in the written examination and was asked to report for an interview. Thereafter, the Respondent vide their electronic mail dated 3rd April, 2007 required the Petitioner to report for his medical evaluation on 13th April, 2007 at 9.30 a.m. in

e. As scheduled the Petitioner was subjected to medical evaluation by Doctors of the Respondent-Company. On the 28th July, 2007 the Petitioner wrote to the Senior Manager (Administration), Operations seeking information about the results and informing the Respondent that the Petitioner had successfully cleared the medical evaluation and other tests conducted by the IAF authorities in the month of March, 2007 and that he had been selected for the Technical Branch as a Permanent Commissioned Officer.

f. Subsequently, vide the impugned letter dated September, 2007 the Petitioner was informed that he had been found unfit in the medical evaluation by the Respondent-Company. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said impugned letter dated 1st September, 2007.

.3. On behalf of the Petitioner, learned counsel, Mr. Harpreet Singh strenuously urges that the Petitioner had successfully cleared the Class-II and Class-I medical assessment conducted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 1st August, 2007 and 13th February, 2008 respectively. Counsel contends that holding of a Class-I license is a sine qua non for becoming a Air Line Pilot as is evident from the electronic mail sent by the Respondent-Company to one of the candidates namely Sh. Randeep Singh Bedi. Counsel for the Petitioner further urges that reports of tests undergone by him at Dr. Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi on 12th January, 2008 and 3rd March, 2009 respectively, clearly show that the Petitioner does not suffer from hypothyroidism as stated on behalf of the Respondent-Company. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Petitioner is medically fit to be appointed to the position of Cadet Pilot in the Respondent-Company and therefore seeks a direction to the Respondent to re-evaluate and re-examine him medically.

4. Per contra, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Company urges that the medical standards of the Respondent-Company are more stringent than the conditions required by the IAF and the DGCA and that the rules and regulations of the Company qua pre-medical standards do not permit medical reexamination. Counsel further urges that the Petitioner has not challenged the rules and regulations of the Respondent-Company and there have been no allegations of malafidesattributed to the Company or its officials by the Petitioner and as such, the present petition is without merit.

5. Counsel lastly submits that Mr. Randeep Singh Bedi, on whose case the Petitioner relies, had not undergone the Class-I assessment, and th