The judgment established the principle that the armed forces' doctors are the ultimate authority in assessing candidates' medical fitness for armed forces recruitment, and their findings should not be disregarded based on reports from civil hospitals.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the results of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME') as well as the appeal Medical Examination (in short, 'aME') whereby the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the respondents. The petitioner further prays for a fresh medical examination before an independent board of doctors set up by the respondents and if found fit, appointment in the Indian Navy with all consequential benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for artificer apprentice (aa) and Senior Secondary Recruits (SSR)- aUG 2020 Batch dated 08.11.2019, the petitioner applied for the post of artificer apprentice (Submarine) in the Indian Navy. Upon clearing the written examination, the petitioner was called for his DME and other tests at the Recruiting Office, INS Chilka, wherein the petitioner was informed about his provisional selection.

3. The petitioner appeared for his DME on 26.01.2021 and vide report dated the same day, the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit on the ground of 'hypo pigmented patches over sternum'. aggrieved by the result of the DME, the petitioner preferred an application for the conduct of his aME.

4. For the conduct of his aME, the petitioner reported at INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as 'INHS Kalyani') on 12.02.2021. During the aME, the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit on the ground of 'vitiligo'.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that upon the petitioner reporting to INHS Kalyani, the petitioner was not allowed to appear for his aME and was rendered medically unfit without any medical test being performed. He submits that the petitioner, along with some other candidates, was given a mere verbal intimation with respect to their medical unfitness without the conduct of their medical re-examination.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the reports of Pt. BD Sharma PGMIS Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'PGMIS'), wherein the Skin OPD found the petitioner to be negative with regards to the 'hypo pigmented patches over sternum'. He further relies upon the certificate issued by Garg Mediskin Hospital, Hissar, to contend that a skin specialist found no evidence of 'vitiligo' on the petitioner. He submits that as of this date, there is an absence of any pigmented patch on the body of the petitioner and that had such a condition genuinely existed, the petitioner would have still shown signs for it.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there is a discrepancy in the report of the DME and the aME, as the DME declared the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground of 'hypo pigmented patches over sternum', while the aME declared the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground of 'vitiligo'.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, places reliance on the reports of the DME and the RME conducted on the petitioner. The report of the RME clearly states that the petitioner was found to be medically unfit on the ground of 'vitiligo'. She further contends that owing to the strenuous and hostile atmosphere and terrains on which personnel in the Forces have to work in, reliance ought to be placed on the medical standards prescribed by the armed Forces as well as the on the opinion of doctors who are better conversant with the circumstances of service. She denies that the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination at the aME stage. She contends that the petitioner was in fact, examined by a specialist dermatologist, who found the petitioner to be suffering from Vitiligo.

9. This Court, by its order dated 06.01.2022, had directed the respondents to place on record the entire medical record of the petitioner. The Court had further directed the doctor who attended upon the petitioner during the aM