The court affirmed that the assessment of fitness by a Medical Board is an expert determination, and interference in such matters should be approached with caution.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Amal Darsingh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prem Narayan Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The instant special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 15441 of 2024, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

3. The writ petition had been filed by the petitioner-appellant, seeking a direction to the concerned respondent-authority to constitute a Medical Board for the medical examination of the petitioner, who has been declared unfit by the respondent-authority during the recruitment of LUC_UTT_VAR_AVGD_2024_121906.

4. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner-appellant had applied for the post of Agni Veer (General Duty) in the Indian Army and after being declared successful in the preliminary written examination as well as physical test, he was called for medical test at Varanasi in which, he was declared unfit, as he is suffering from disability of Onychomycosis Specified right index finger. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the Military Hospital, Prayagraj for review in which, he was also declared unfit. Then, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4, who is Head of Department and Assistant Professor, PG Department of Dermatology, Venereology & Laprosy, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj for his medical test. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 issued a certificate to him, opining that Onychomycosis is a non-communicable disease and is curable.

5. The principal ground on which the petitioner-appellant had approached the writ Court, seeking constitution of a medical board, was based on a medical examination report dated 10.9.2024 given by respondent No. 4.

6. In order to verify the status of the report, a personal affidavit of the said respondent No. 4 was called for by learned Single Judge and the said respondent also appeared personally before the Court on 12.11.2024.

7. On the same date, instructions were produced by counsel for the respondent-authorities, indicating therein that the petitioner-appellant had been medically examined by the doctors of the Army and he was found unfit for the disability of 'Onychomycosis Specified right index finger'. Thereafter, petitioner was reviewed by Senior Medical Officer (SRMO) wherein the disability of 'Onychomycosis' was confirmed by the SRMO. On being found 'Unfit' by two separate doctors (MO & SRMO), the petitioner was further referred to Military Hospital, Prayagraj for medical review test by a specialist doctor for the said disability. The specialist doctor at Military Hospital, Prayagraj also opined and declared the petitioner as unfit for 'Onychomycosis Specified right index finger'.

8. The affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and the instructions produced by counsel for the respondent-authorities were examined by learned Single Judge and based on the aforesaid, following observations were made:

''4. In the affidavit, it is stated by respondent No. 4 that he has not conducted the medical examination of the petitioner regarding the recommendation of his appointment in any provision of law and only attended the petitioner in general O.P.D. and given his opinion inadvertently without any wilful intention. He has also tendered his unconditional apology, which is accepted.

5. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

'' (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to constitute the medical board for the medical of the petitioner, who has been declared unfit by the respondent No. 3 during the recruitment of the LUC-UTT-VAR-AVGD-2024-121906.''

6. The basis of filing the present petition is a report dated 10.9.2024 given by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has admitted this fact in his affidavit that he has not conducted the medical examination of the petitioner regarding the recommendation of his appointment in any provision of law and only attained the petitioner in gener