Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Akshay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2232/2026 | REVIEW PET. 363/2026 | CM APPL. 54013/2026 | CM APPL. 54012/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vivek Bhai Patel, Ajeet Yadav, Sonu Sharma
For the Respondents: Balendu Shekhar, Divyansh Singh Dev, Krishna Chaitanya, Rajkumar Maurya, Shambhavi, Bhaskar, Aakarshan Agarwal
In recruitment to the Armed Forces, the medical opinion of specialized military boards prevails over contrary opinions from civilian or other government doctors due to the more rigorous fitness standards required for military service.
Headnote:(A) Medical Fitness - Recruitment to Armed Forces - Superiority of Military Medical Boards - Opinion of private or other government hospitals cannot override the findings of specialized military medical boards as the standards for armed forces are more rigorous than civilian standards. (Para 8)
(B) Review Petition - Scope - Error apparent on the face of record - A review petition is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record; mere submission of a contrary medical opinion from a civilian hospital does not constitute such an error. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether a contrary medical opinion from a government hospital warrants the granting of a Review Medical Board when military boards have already found the candidate unfit.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
(ORAL)
CM APPL. 54013/2026
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 363/2026, CM APPL. 54012/2026(condn. of delay)
3. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 17.02.2026 whereby the writ petition was dismissed by the Court stating in paragraph nos.5 to 10 as under:-
“5. We find that the petitioner, except for challenging the order of the First Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board, has not placed any material on record with his representation or in the petition to contend that the opinion given by the First Medical Board and Appellate Board are erroneous, which require review insofar as the ground no. 3 of unfitness.
6. We also find the reason given in the impugned order is that the request for Review Medical Board is not as per the existing policy.
7. Mr Balendu Shekhar, CGSC and the officer, who is present through online mode submits that the benefit of Review Medical Board cannot be sought as a matter of right. In other words, the Competent Authority has to be satisfied that, a ground exist for re-consideration of the opinions by the Review Medical Board, more so, when two Medical Boards have found the petitioner unfit on one ground or the other.
8. We agree with the submission made by the Mr Shekhar, inasmuch as the petitioner has not placed before us any opinion given by a Government hospital in his favour, moreso on ground no. (3) of the Appellate Medical Board. In the absence of any such opinion, the Competent Authority is justified in stating that the request of the petitioner for grant of Review Medical Board cannot be considered as per the existing policy.
9. That apart, we find in the representation dated 08.10.2024, the ground taken by the petitioner reads as under:-
“At the medical conference, I was told that I am Temporarily unfit for Navy Pilot. I wanted to apply for the Review Medical Board.
Gp Capt MS(MB), RK Puram Medical Board told me to contact DMPR to apply for the Review Medical Board as I am a Naval Candidate. I further request you to grant me RMB so that I can be considered for my chosen/alternate Branches.”
10. A reading of the representation would reveal that the petitioner intended to seek the Review Medical Board only for recruitment to an alternate branch.”
4. The submission of Mr. Vivek Bhai Patel, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner is just the reiteration of the submissions as were advanced while arguing the writ petition. Additionally, he states that, after the order dated 17.02.2026 was passed, the petitioner had approached the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (RML) and got the X-Ray done at the Department of Radiology, wherein the doctor has opined as under:-
“Visualised vertebrae are normal in density, Height alignment and curvature. Visualised Intervertebral disc shadow are normal in Height. Visualised prevertebral and rest of Soft tissue shadow appear normal.
Impression : Normal”
5. According to him, as per the advice of the RML dated 20.05.2026, the petitioner has no issue related to the spine. If that be so, the respondents could not have disqualified the petitioner for appointment in Navy on the ground that he suffers from spondylolysis, for which there is no basis.
6. Suffice to state that the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for appointment.
7. Today, we have interacted with the concerned Doctors of the respondents, who have stated that the matter was referred to Director General of Armed Forces and Medical Services (DGAFMS), which found that there is no reason to allow the Review Medical Board in the case of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents is justified in relying upon the decision in the case of Nitin Jakhar v. Union of India & Others, 2021:DHC:1994-DB wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the context of allowing a Re
