* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18760/2025, CM APPLs. 78125/2025 & 78126/2025 CHANDAN JOSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Indra Sen Singh, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Nasir Mohammad and Ms. Kaberi Sharma, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC for UOI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 CM APPL. 78126/2025 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 18760/2025

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been permitted to have himself examined by a Review Medical Board, $~77

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, has drawn our attention to the instructions issued by the

1“RMB”,hereinafter

respondents with respect to convening of RMB. We deem it

appropriate to reproduce Clauses 1.1.38 and 1.1.39 thereof as under:

“ReviewMedical Board (RMB)

1.1.38.The RMB will be convened by the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) at AFMC Pune/Army Hospital (R&R) Delhi Cantt on the specific request of Service Headquarters or the Ministry of Defence when an opinion of a previous medical board is challenged by an individual and the Service Headquarters concerned or the Ministry of Defence considers there is some weight in the challenge. The findings of the RMB will be accepted as final after approval by the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services. No further appeal will be entertained by Service Headquarters or the Ministry of Defence. In each case the RMB will be convened with the prior approval of the Ministry of Defence. The composition of the RMB will be in accordancewithpara482ofRMSAF-2010.

Procedures forRMB

1.1.39.When a candidate is declared unfit by the Appeal Medical Board, the result would be communicated to him/her by the President of Appeal Medical Board in the prescribed form. He/She may simultaneously be informed that if he/she desires to challenge the findings of the Appeal Medical Board, he/she may do so within one working day. The candidate shall also be informed by the President, Appeal Medical Board, that holding Review Medical Board will be granted at the discretion of DGAFMS, based on the merits of the case, and that Review Medical Board is not a matter ofright.”

5. Clearly, Clause 1.1.39 of the aforesaid instructions requires that the result of the Appeal Medical Board² has to be communicated to the candidate in the prescribed form by the President of the AMB.

6. Mr. Indra Sen Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits,

2“AMB”,hereinafter

on instructions, that no such result of the AMB was communicated to him, and he was merely orally informed of the outcome of the AMB, on the basis of which he made the request for a RMB.

7. To our mind, breach of Clause 1.1.39 of the respondent’s own instructions, by itself suffices as a basis to permit the petitioner to be examined by a RMB.

8. However, Mr. Rajesh Kumar seeks a day’s time to ascertain as to whether in fact the report of the AMB was, or was not, communicated to the petitioner.

9. Moreover, we also find that the rejection of the petitioner’s request for RMB is completely unreasoned.

10. The instructions provided to us by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, quoted by us above, no doubt clothe the respondents with discretion as to whether to allow, or not allow, a request for an RMB. It is, however, well settled that any exercise of executive discretion has to be judicious, and not arbitrary. The requirement of judicious exercise of discretion pre-supposes that some reason would be given while rejecting the request.

11. We find that the impugned decision of the RMB gives no reason whatsoever for rejecting the petitioner’s request.

12. In these circumstances, issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.

13. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

14. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks with adva