The discretionary nature of convening Review Medical Board (RMB) and the policy of the Armed Forces in rejecting candidates with certain medical conditions were upheld by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. Vide order dated 03.03.2020, this Court observed as under:-

'3. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 23.12.2019 issued by the Respondents conveying the decision of the Competent Authority not to grant a Review Medical Board (RMB) to the Petitioner as per the existing policy. The Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to the Respondents to grant the RMB for entry into the 143rd NDA Course at Khadakwasala, Pune. He seeks a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join the said 143 NDA Course at Khadakwasala, Pune.

4. The Petitioner who is a young man of nineteen years of age, applied for the National Defence Academy and Naval Academy Examination (1/2019) conducted by UPSC, Delhi. He appeared in the examination on 21.04.2019. He qualified in the written examination and was called for Service Selection Board interview on 18.08.2019. The Petitioner was recommended from SSB Bhopal on 23.08.2019 after he qualified various tasks and stages of the SSB interview conducted over a period of five days. On 21.08.2019, he was sent for medical examination before the Special Medical Board at Military Hospital Bhopal. Petitioner was rejected/declared unfit upon his medical examination on two issues and was granted right of appeal against the finding of the Special Medical Boar^ Accordingly, he appeared before the Appeal Medical Board at Base Hospital Camp, Delhi, on 10.10.2019, but was found to be medically unfit on account of Renal Calculus (L1), meaning that he had a stone in his left kidney. The communication dated 19.10.2019 was issued to the Petitioner after his examination by the Appeal Medical Board. The said communication inter alia stated that when a candidate is declared unfit by Appeal Medical Board, there is a provision to hold Review Medical Board (RMB) in case the candidate desires to challenge the findings of the Appeal Medical Board. It was also stipulated that the candidate may do so within a period of 1 day from the date of AMB by submitting an application for RMB addressed to Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), Adjutant General's Branch, Dte General Medical Service (Army)/DGMS- 5(A) 'L' Block, New Delhi with a copy to the president of the AMB.

5. The Petitioner, accordingly, applied for holding of the Review Medical Board which was declined by the impugned communication dated 23.12.2019. In this background, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition which appears to be filed for the first time on 27.02.2020.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner primarily is that the Respondents have not permitted the conduct of the Review Medical Board despite the Petitioner having a right for convening of the RMB. Further, the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the medical condition of the Petitioner, namely Renal Calculus (Lt.), is not a medical condition which justifies the Petitioner being declared medically unfit since the Petitioner is not having any stones m either of his kidneys, and by surgical intervention conducted on 26.09.2019, the stone in the left kidney of the Petitioner had been removed. Petitioner has placed on record a medical certificate issued to him by the Golcha Hospital and Urological Research Centre, Jabalpur on 17.02.2020 as well as Medical Certificate by Department of Radiodiagnosis Super Speciality Hospital, NSCB Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur on 13.02.2020.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents puts in appearance on advance notice and he is assisted by Lt. Col. Kapil Pandya. The first submission of learned counsel for the Respondents is that the impugned communication was issued on 23.12.2019 but the petition has been preferred only at the end of February, 2020. In the meantime, the concerned course has already commenced on 02.01.2020. The petition is therefore barred by delay and laches. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that a RMB cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is convened only in