The court affirmed that a recruit's pre-existing medical condition invalidates entitlement to compensation under the Agnipath Scheme, emphasizing the validity of medical assessments conducted post-recruitment.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sudhir Singh, J.

The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh at Chandimandir, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had applied for recruitment of Agniveer under the Agnipath Scheme. The physical test was conducted on 29.10.2022 and the Recruiting Medical Officer declared him fit. The petitioner after having cleared all other formalities, was directed to report for training on 22.02.2023. Soon thereafter, he was subjected to medical examination, whereupon the Inspecting Medical Officer, had noticed a large scar on the anterior aspect of his left leg. The petitioner was referred to Military Hospital, Gopalpur, for expert opinion, where he was admitted on 27.02.2023, wherefrom he was referred to Command Hospital, Kolkata. The Surgical Specialist vide his opinion dated 04.03.2023 had opined that the scar being hypertrophic in nature, may break down during hard training and in hot and humid climate. Based on the said opinion, the petitioner was invalided from service on 16.05.2023, after putting him through an Invalidment Medical Board.

3. The stand of the official respondents before the learned AFT was that according to the Policy dated 03.04.2017, regulating medical examination of recruits, a recruit has to be examined on joining the training centre and that the said policy does not violate Regulation 135(d) of the Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition), 1987 (for short 'the Regulations') and that the opinion dated 04.03.2023 given by a Classified Specialist (Surgery) and Reconstructive Surgeon, will prevail over the opinion of the Recruiting Medical Officer.

4. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the learned AFT has found that the Recruitment Medical Officer could not be expected to inspect the applicant with closed eye and the petitioner was referred to the Classified Surgical Specialties, who gave his opinion dated 04.03.2024 and it could not be shown by the petitioner that the said opinion was perverse. Thus, the learned AFT did not find any merit in the stand of the petitioner that a differing medical opinion cannot be made the basis for invaliding the petitioner from service.

5. As regards compensation under the Agnipath Scheme, the learned AFT has noticed the criteria as contained in Clause 8 of the said scheme and concluded that the said criteria is not applicable to a recruit invalided from service. It was further found that compensation is due only to a permanent Low Medical Category, who is not enrolled in the regular cadre due to the same. Accordingly, the OA was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the time of recruitment, besides having passed the rigorous physical test, the petitioner was found medically fit and was declared as such by the Recruitment Medical Officer. It is further argued that the scar found on the left leg of the petitioner is not a disability as it does not affect the normal working of a soldier and further, it does not affect any bone of the body. While referring to the Primary Medical Examination Report dated 31.10.2022, it is submitted that the said report had declared the petitioner as medically fit and the same is signed by MO 2016 Field Hospital; Medical Officer ARO and AK ATRE COL SRMO, HQ, RTG, Zone. It is further argued that as per Policy dated 03.04.2017 issued by the IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), the opinion of the Recruiting Medical Officer is valid for a period of 180 days and, thus, the medical examination of the petitioner after reporting to the training centre, was totally illegal. In this regard reference has been made to Regulation 135(d) of Regulations.

7. It is further argued that the petitioner has been invalided out of service within three months of the training, but as