Delhi High Court
R Archith Sai vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 July, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8697/2025 & CM APPL. 37260/2025
R ARCHITH SAI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner is an aspirant to the Flying Branch of Navy. He
was suffering from inguinal hernia. His case is that he was duly
operated for the ailment and is under the process of recovery.
2. According to the averments in the writ petition, the recovery
normally takes about eight weeks, however, within six weeks of
surgery, the petitioner was examined by a medical board and found
unfit for appointment.
3. Mr. Kakkar, who appears for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner had filed an appeal to the Appeal Medical Board but that the
outcome of the Appeal Medical Board has not been communicated to
the petitioner in writing, though he was verbally informed that he was
cleared on all other counts except the continuance of the inguinal
hernia. He submits that this was because sufficient time for recovery
from the surgical procedure had not been granted.
4. Mr. Kakkar also draws our attention to a notification issued in
connection with the Air Force Common Admission Test (AFCAT-
02/2024) for Flying Branch. He submits, on instructions that these
identical instructions apply to the Navy. He has referred us to Clause
20(g) of the said Instructions which reads thus:
"20. Gastrointestinal System
(g) Hernia. Hernial sites are to be examined for
presence of inguinal, epigastric, umbilical and femoral
hernia. Any abdominal wall hernia is unfit. A candidate
with a well-healed surgical scar, after 06 months of either
open or laparoscopic repair (Anterior Abdominal wall
hernia-24 weeks), is considered fit provided there is no
evidence of recurrence and the abdominal wall musculature
is good."
5. Mr. Haseeb, under instructions, submits that, without entering
into the merits of the dispute, and keeping in mind the Instructions to
which Mr. Kakkar has drawn our attention without treating the present
case as a precedent, the respondents are willing to subject the
petitioner to a Review Medical Board. He, however, submits that the
petitioner should be agreeable to comply with the result of the Review
Medical Board and treat it as binding.
6. Mr. Kakkar, on instructions, agrees to the said submission.
7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the dispute, we
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to
conduct a Review Medical Board and consider the petitioner's case
for fitness to join, consequent to the Air Force Common Admission
Test (AFCAT-02/2024).
8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and that the outcome of the Review Medical Board
would be binding on both the parties.
9. Mr. Kakkar, on instructions, is agreeable to the Review Medical
Board being held on 5 July 2025.
10. The respondents will inform Mr. Kakkar, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, about the place and time where his client would have to
report for the Review Medical Board.
11. The Review Medical Board would proceed on the basis of the
condition of the petitioner as it is today.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned Counsel
for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JULY 2, 2025/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
