Candidates for military service must meet prescribed medical standards, and choosing to appear for an Appeal Medical Board precludes further assessments unless procedural irregularities are demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Armed Forces Regulations - Medical Examination - The petitioner challenged his disqualification during the Airmen selection process based on medical grounds, specifically concerning 'Pilonidal Sinus' and 'Perianal Fistula' - The petitioner had undergone surgery and claimed the conditions would not affect military service efficiency - The court emphasized that selection must meet established medical standards. (Paras 2, 9, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Appeal Medical Board - Authority to declare candidates unfit - The court ruled that candidates undergoing medical examinations are bound by the results unless the process shows irregularities - The petitioner's voluntary attendance at the appealed examination barred further review. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the Airmen recruitment, was initially declared fit, but later found unfit after a medical examination revealing surgical conditions. The appeal was filed following this disqualification, asserting the examination was improperly conducted.

Findings of Court:
The court found no irregularities in the Appeal Medical Board's procedures and confirmed the conditions supported the unfitness ruling.

Issues: The court examined the legitimacy of the medical evaluations and the petitioner’s appeal against the disqualification based on medical grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the medical standards set by the Armed Forces are non-negotiable and the evaluation process adhered to prescribed guidelines, asserting no further examinations are warranted once a candidate opts into the process.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for writ of mandamus. (Para 1)
2. factual background on medical examinations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. emphasis on unfair treatment and procedural concerns. (Para 5 , 10)
4. verification of medical examination protocols. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court observations on medical fitness assessment. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. The petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and directions to the respondents with the following prayers:

"(a) to issue writ of mandamus/certiorari or other appropriate writ/order or directions to the respondents by:

(i) for a direction to the respondents IAF to produce complete record of the case;

(ii) seeking quashing of the proceedings and findings dated 12th August 2020 of the Appeal Medical Board, dated 1st July, 2020 of Medical Board;

(iii) seeking mandamus to the respondents IAF to conduct medical examination of the petitioner or reference to the specialist at any designated military hospital;

(iv) seeking directions to amend the Medical Documents including Manual of Medical Examination & Boards documents pertaining to medical examination (manual of medical Examination and medical boards, IAP 4303 (4th edition:September 2010), any `Medical Directive", rules, procedure and conditions;

(v) seeking mandamus for selection of the petitioner as Airmen, if found medically fit:

(vi) further, during the pendency of the Writ Petition Respondents may be directed to keep one post of airmen Vacant; and/or

(b) pass any such order as this Hon'ble court may deems and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had applied in the recruitment of Airmen in Group X and Y Trade pursuant to the advertisement dated 1st July, 2019. He appeared for the Phase-1 written examination at Agra in which he was declared successful. Thereafter, he appeared in the Phase-2 Examination which consisted of Physical Fitness, Group Discussion, Psychological and Medical Examination on 27th November, 2019. On his full body physical examination, the petitioner was found with "ECG abnormality and CBS review" and was referred to the Appeal Medical Board Bagdogra at 06 Wing, ASC where he was declared fit on both the points, after undergoing ECG on 6th December, 2020. The fitness certificate dated 18th February, 2020 was issued to him.

3. After having been so declared fit the petitioner was positioned at 24th rank in the provisional merit list out of 4382 candidates. He received the final call letter to report for enrolment in the IAF, at Airmen Training Station (ATS) Belgavi on 5th June, 2020. At the physical pre-enrolment medical examination at ATS, Belgavi, the petitioner was found to be suffering from `Pilonidal Sinus' and `Perianal Fistula' on 1st July, 2020. Therefore, he was not cleared and was asked to report at the Appeal Medical Board at SMC, AMB, Bagdogra on 10th August, 2020.

4. On receipt of this "Red Card", on 1st July, 2020, the petitioner claims to have consulted a specialist doctor, who opined that he was suffering only from `Pilonidal Sinus' and not `Perianal Fistula' which could be effectively treated and which had a low recurrence rate and which would, according to the petitioner have no impact on efficient discharge of military service. The petitioner underwent `non-invasive Endoscopic Pilonidal Sinus Treatment with LASER' on 12th July, 2020 and also had, prior to that, undergone an `MRI Fistulagram' on 8th July, 2020. He was issued a fitness certificate after treatment on 4th August, 2020 by the specialist. However, when he was examined by the Appeal Medical Board at SMC, 20-Wing, Bagdogra on 12th August, 2020 he was again declared medically unfit on account of `Pilonidal Sinus' and `Perianal Fistula'. In order to be satisfied that he had no re-occurrence after the wound had healed the petitioner got himself medically examine