IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/2ND POUSHA, 1937

WP(C).No. 39281 of 2015 (I)

----------------------------

PETITIONER :

------------------

ANJIT A. NAYAR, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. ATHUL IP,

NIVEDYAM, MACHEL P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU,

TRIVANDRUM - 695571.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN

SRI. D.N.KRISHNAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS :

---------------------

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RECRUITING,

DIRECTORATE OF NDA, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS,

ADJUTANT GENERAL BRANCH, WEST BLOCK III,

R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI -110066

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AFMS, ROOM NO. 60,

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, M-BLOCK, CHURCH ROAD,

CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI -1

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR, CGC

BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 23-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 39281 of 2015 (I)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

P1:

COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RANK LIST.

P2:

COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE.

P3:

COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

bp

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

W.P(C) No. 39281 of 2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 23^rd day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the

petitioner's candidature in the National Defence Academy and the

Naval Academy Examination 2015, has been rejected for medical

reasons. The petitioner admits that he had appeared before a

Special Medical Board held on 30.9.2015 when he found to be

afflicted with three medical conditions which prompted the

respondent authorities to reject his candidature. They were: (1)

Rt.Testicular atrophy (2) Bilateral vaicocele (3) Small Rt. Testes

(4) Epididymal cyst (right). The petitioner contends that though

he had conducted a scan, by himself, the scan report did not show

any Epididymal cyst and vericocele. However, in the Appeal

Medical Board also, he was found to have three of the aforecited

medical conditions.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

WPC.No.39281/2015

: 2 :

instead of Epididymal cyst the Appeal Medical Board found the

Epididymal thickening. A Review Medical Board is also

constituted, in which again, the Epididymal cyst was revealed on

medical examination.

3. In any event, the petitioner admits that he had

removed the Epididymal cyst as is evidenced from Ext.P2. Hence it

cannot be said that the petitioner did not suffer from any medical

condition which was brought to his notice as early as on 30.09.2015

when the Medical Board was initially conducted.The petitioner

without attempting to remove the cyst had conducted test by

himself and again appeared before the Appeal Medical Board

which also found Epididymal thickening, and again in the Review

Medical Board, the cyst was confirmed.

4. The petitioner does not state before this Court as to

the date on which the Appeal Medical Board or the Review

Medical Board were constituted or the petitioner examined. The

petitioner had sufficient time to remove the cyst before the appeal

WPC.No.39281/2015

: 3 :

and the review. In any event, the petitioner submits that now by

surgical intervention, the medical conditions have been rectified.

The learned Central Government Counsel on

instruction submits that the entire selection process is over and the

course is to commence on 02.01.2016. The petitioner had sufficient

time to cure the medical conditions before the appeal and review

board, which he did not do and maintained on the basis of a test

initiated by himself, that he did not have the medical conditions.

Eventually the medical condition had