[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vivek Insa vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 April, 2026
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 4910/2026, CM APPL. 24053/2026 and CM APPL.
24055/2026
VIVEK INSA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Bhai Patel, Mr. Sonu
Sharma, Mr Ajeet Yadav and
Mr. SK Devrani, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Seth, SPC along
with Ms. Achal Gupta, Mr.
Mukesh Sachdeva, Mr.
Widaphi Lyngdoh and Mr.
Bhaskar Joshi, Advs. for R-1 to
5.
Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the
decision of the Appeal Medical Board dated 24.03.2026, whereby the
Petitioner was declared medically unfit for recruitment to the Indian
Air Force in Airmen Intake 02/2026, Group 'Y' (Non-Technical),
Medical Assistant trade, and seeks issuance of a direction for
constitution of a Review Medical Board / fresh medical examination.
2. The facts, to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present
Petition, are required to be noticed. The Petitioner applied pursuant to
the recruitment process for Airmen Intake 02/2026. He appeared in the
Phase-I examination on 25.09.2025 and, having qualified the same,
was called for Phase-II examination held on 19.01.2026, which he also
cleared. He is stated to have successfully passed the physical tests as
well.
3. Thereafter, the Petitioner underwent the initial medical
examination on 30.01.2026 and was declared medically unfit on four
counts, namely: (i) Irregular Rhythm, (ii) Elevated Serum Uric Acid,
(iii) Genu Varum, and (iv) Acne Vulgaris over chest and back.
Thereafter, the Appeal Medical Board [hereinafter referred to as
'AMB'] was appointed on 30.01.2026. The Petitioner was accorded an
opportunity to appear before the AMB on 25.02.2026.
4. The Petitioner, upon examination by the AMB, was ultimately
retained as medically unfit only on account of Elevated Serum Uric
Acid. Accordingly, the certificate of unfitness dated 24.03.2026 came
to be issued to the Petitioner by the AMB.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner got himself tested for Serum
Uric Acid at the District Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, on 01.04.2026,
where the test reportedly yielded a reading of 3.7 mg/dL, which,
according to the Petitioner, was within normal reference limits. The
Petitioner further relies on another test conducted at PGIMS, Rohtak,
on 03.04.2026, in which Serum Uric Acid reportedly yielded value of
3.9 mg/dL. The Petitioner thus asserts that the reading on the basis of
which he has been declared unfit was transient, possibly attributable to
factors such as dehydration.
6. The prescribed Physical/Medical Standards for Airmen in the
recruitment process expressly provide that the medical examination
would include baseline biochemistry, including RFT - Serum Urea,
Uric Acid, Creatinine. The standards further provide that a candidate
declared medically unfit may avail the remedy of Appeal Medical
Board, that the Recruitment Medical Officer and the specialist doctors
of Armed Forces are the final authorities on declaring a candidate fit
or unfit during the initial medical examination, AMB and medical
examination prior to enrolment and that the candidate shall be
governed by Armed Forces medical standards which may be at
variance from civil standards, with no provision for representation or
Review after the AMB.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in SSC & Ors. v. Aman
Singh1 has reiterated that, while judicial review over medical opinions
in recruitment to disciplined forces is not altogether excluded, the
Court must exercise restraint and cannot routinely sit in appeal over
the opinion of expert medical authorities. Interference may be
warranted where the facts disclose some substantial infirmity, such as
breach of the prescribed procedure, notable discrepancy in successive
findings, absence of the requisite specialist where the condition so
requires, or disregard of a specialist opinion or investigation which the
Board itself had sought. Equally, it emphasises that the matter must
2024: DHC:8441-DB
turn on the facts of the individual case and not on any omnibus
formula.
8. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court is
not persuaded that the present case warrants interference. The
Petitioner has relied upon later reports obtained from Government
hospitals outside the service recruitment framework. However, those
later reports, by themselves, do not displace the medical opinion
rendered in the course of the prescribed recruitment medical
examination process. The governing standards make it clear that the
Armed Forces medical authorities are the final authorities for the
purposes of the recruitment examination and that the applicable
service standards may differ from civil standards.
9. This Court is unable to accept the submission that merely
because the later civil-hospital reports reflect values asserted to be
within normal reference limits, a further Review Medical Board must
necessarily follow. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also
submitted that the certificate issued by the Appeal Medical Board does
not itself disclose the precise serum uric acid reading. That
circumstance, by itself, does not carry the Petitioner further. No
material has been placed before this Court to show that the governing
recruitment framework required the AMB certificate to reproduce the
numerical value, or that omission thereof, absent anything more,
vitiates the medical opinion.
10. The issue before this Court is not whether another set of
medical professionals may have taken a different view, but whether
the decision-making process of the competent service medical
authorities stands vitiated by such patent infirmity as would justify
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In the present case, no specific violation of the
governing recruitment medical framework has been shown. Nor has
the Petitioner demonstrated that the applicable procedure
contemplated any further representational or review examination after
the finding of the AMB.
11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the elevated
uric acid reading was transient, curable, and later normalised itself.
Even if that submission is assumed to be arguable on the medical
plane, it does not follow that the medical unfitness opinion rendered in
the recruitment process becomes legally unsustainable. The standards
prescribed during the recruitment expressly treat uric acid as one of
the relevant biochemical parameters for medical evaluation, and the
finality attached under the scheme to the Armed Forces medical
opinion cannot be displaced merely by the subsequently obtained
civil-hospital reports outside the recruitment framework.
12. In the considered view of this Court, therefore, the present
matter does not disclose the kind of substantial infirmity contemplated
in Aman Singh (Supra) so as to warrant a direction for a fresh
medical examination. No case of absence of the requisite specialist
under the applicable framework, disregard of a specialist opinion
sought by service authorities themselves, or comparable procedural
illegality has been made out.
13. In view of the above, no ground to interfere with the impugned
decision of the Appeal Medical Board dated 24.03.2026. The Writ
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications shall stand
closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 13, 2026
s.godara/ad
