Medical standards for admission to military institutions are rigorous; opinions from non-specialist doctors cannot override decisions made by Armed Forces medical boards.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

C.M. No. 19541/2021(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6163/2021

3. The petitioner, an applicant of the year 2019 for admission to the National Defence Academy (NDA), has filed this petition impugning the findings dated 7th February, 2020 and 3rd March, 2020 of the Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board respectively of the respondents, finding the petitioner medically unfit for admission on the grounds of Chest Deformity and Pectus Excavatum.

4. It is the pleading of the petitioner, (i) that the petitioner, on 3rd March, 2020 applied for Review Medical Board and which application was rejected on 17th July, 2020; (ii) that the petitioner got himself medically examined from several hospitals and which have issued certificates dated 21st February, 2020, 28th July, 2020, 16th February, 2020, 23rd February, 2021 and 25th February, 2021 of the petitioner being medically fit; (iii) that the petitioner, on 2nd March, 2021 also got issued a legal notice to the respondents; and, (iv) that the deformity of the petitioner is within the normal range.

5. We have in Ishwar Singh Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/0813/2021 (DB) and Madhusudhana P.S. Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/0933/2021 (DB) observed that most of such petitions are filed without the counsel for the petitioner even adverting to the medical standards prescribed for admission/recruitment in such forces/bodies and which results in claims of medical fitness supported by certificates of government/private doctors being made but which are dehors the standards prescribed for employment/admission in such forces/bodies. We have in the judgments aforesaid further observed that if before filing the petition, such study of the medical standards is made, it would not only enable a better and composite challenge being made but would also save the time of the Court. The counsel today appearing for the petitioner also, in several other matters in the past, has been requested to, before filing the petition, study the said standards. Inspite thereof, in this petition, pleading has been made, that the deformity of the petitioner (which is admitted), is within normal range, without any reference to the prescribed standards and it is not pleaded how the deformity is within the prescribed range.

6. The counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that before filing this petition also she has not studied the relevant manual.

7. In the absence thereof, merely because some doctors of private hospitals or even government hospitals may have found the petitioner medically fit to perform day-to-day tasks, the same cannot make the petitioner meet the medical standards prescribed for joining the subject institution, the demands whereof are far more rigorous than the demands of the day-to-day life of a civilian. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951 (DB), Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924 (DB), Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1524/2020 (DB) [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13492/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 17th December, 2020], Vani Viswanathan Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1678/2020 (DB) [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12682/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 5th January, 2021], Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/2069/2020 (DB), Aman Yadav Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/0944/2021 (DB), Sachin Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1041/2021 (DB), Pooja Vs. Union of India, MA