ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

The Indian Navy conducted recruitment process for appointment on the post of Sailors. The petitioner participated in the said selection process for getting appointment on the post of Sailor. After qualifying in the examination, the petitioner was preliminary examined and he was found to be fit and finally his medical examination was conducted and he was found to be unfit due to "ECG abnormality" vide medical certificate dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter, a review medical examination of the petitioner was conducted and again the petitioner was found to be unfit for the same reasons i.e. "ECG LBBB abnormality" vide medical certificate dated 24.08.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after review medical examination, the petitioner got examined himself at All India Institution of Medical Science, Delhi (for short, "AIIMS") on 27.09.2019, where no symptoms of "ECG LBBB" were found. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, petitioner cannot be treated as unfit for appointment on the post of Sailor. Counsel submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to conduct his re-medical examination to ascertain about his fitness.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has neither been able to point out any irregularity in the medical examination nor any allegation of mala fide or bias have been levelled against the medical experts, who have examined and found him unfit. Counsel submits that the Medical Officer at AIIMS Hospital does not understand or know the requirement of this job and the standard of medical fitness for getting appointment on the post of Sailors. Counsel submits that it cannot be said that the certificate issued by AIIMS would be up to the mark. Counsel submits that Indian Navy is a part of force and forces are required to serve on rough terrain, harsh climate conditions and stressful conditions. The fitness of the candidates for such service is to be considered on the basis of requisite duties and such candidates have to perform keeping in view the climatic conditions. Counsel submits that since the petitioner was twice medically examined by the experts and on both occasions he was found to be unfit and in absence of any allegations of mala fide/bias against the medical experts, the petitioner is not entitled to get again re-examination of medical for the third time. Hence under these circumstance, interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Ahil Singh v. Union of India : WP (C) No. 797/2021 decided by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir;

(2) Ashish Kumar Pandey v. Union of India : WP (C) No. 5847/2021 decided by the Delhi High Court.

3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone the medical examination process as required under Clause 11 of the advertisement issued by the respondents. Sub clause (a) of the Clause 11 of the advertisement clearly indicates that medical examination will be conducted by the various medical doctors as per the medical standard prescribed in current regulations applicable to sailors on entry. Sub clause (c) further indicates that the candidate must be in good physical and mental health, free from any defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of duties both ashore and affloat under peace as well as war conditions as per Navy order (Special) 01/2008. Sub clause (d) further indicates that preliminary Medical examination for recruitment will be considered only "provisionall