Dismissed¶10

Aditya Jha v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/13347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aditya Jha v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) 13347/2025; CM APPL. 54678/2025 & 54679/2025; High Court of Delhi; decided 04.09.2025; bench: C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla. Keywords: AFCAT 2025; Flying Officer recruitment; Review Medical Board; Special Medical Board (SMB); Appeal Medical Board (AMB); Disc Degenerative Disease (DDD); concurrent unfitness findings; no statutory basis for RMB claim; writ petition dismissed at pre-notice stage with conditional liberty to revive upon fresh material.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; however, the petitioner was expressly left at liberty to revive this writ petition by means of an appropriate application if he produces material indicating that, even after the concurrent SMB and AMB findings, he is entitled to a Review Medical Board. ¶10

Aditya Jha Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, despite having been concurrently found unfit by the Special Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board, was entitled to a Review Medical Board with respect to his medical condition for recruitment to the post of Flying Officer consequent to the AFCAT 2025.

¶1

Court's answer

Perusal of the detailed SMB and AMB findings showed that the petitioner's impression that he had been declared only temporarily unfit by the SMB was incorrect.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The SMB and the AMB have concurrently found the petitioner to be unfit as he suffers from Disc Degenerative Disease (DDD); there is thus no discrepancy between the two Boards' findings as claimed by counsel.

¶6

Key takeaways

No material on record sustains the submission that the petitioner is entitled to a Review Medical Board despite the concurrent SMB and AMB findings; counsel drew attention to no statutory, quasi-statutory or executive provision, or instruction, conferring such a right.ratio¶8
The material on record does not make out a case for issuance of notice, i.e., the writ petition was not admitted for further adjudication.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Aditya Jha v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13347/2025 (HC Delhi, oral order dated 04.09.2025; C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.). Sole issue: whether the petitioner, concurrently found unfit by the Special Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board for recruitment as Flying Officer through AFCAT 2025 (condition: Disc Degenerative Disease/DDD), was entitled to a Review Medical Board. Counsel argued the petitioner had been told he was only 'temporarily unfit' per the SMB, whereas the AMB certified unfitness on account of DDD; respondents then produced the detailed SMB/AMB findings across the Bar, which established that the 'temporary unfitness' impression was incorrect and that both Boards concurrently found the petitioner unfit. Finding no statutory, quasi-statutory or executive provision or instruction entitling a candidate to a Review Medical Board in the face of concurrent SMB/AMB findings, the Bench concluded the material did not warrant issuance of notice and dismissed the writ petition, reserving the petitioner's liberty to revive it by an appropriate application upon production of supporting material.

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13347/2025, CM APPL. 54678/2025 & CM APPL. 54679/2025

¶4

ADITYA JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Premtosh K Mishra, CGSC, Mr. Sarthak Anand and Mr. Prarabdh Tiwari, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 04.09.2025

¶9

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶10

1. As we have noted in the order passed yesterday, the only issue to be considered in this case is whether the petitioner was entitled to a Review Medical Board with respect to his medical condition for recruitment to the post of Flying Officer consequent to the AFCAT 2025, despite his having been concurrently found to be unfit by the Special Medical Board¹ and Appeal Medical Board² .

¶11

2. Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted yesterday that his client had not been provided a copy of the SMB report but had been informed that he had found only temporarily unfit

¶12

1 “SMB” hereinafter

¶13

2 “AMB” hereinafter

¶14

Signature Not Ver ified

¶15

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 13347/2025 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:08.09.2025 18:30:59

¶16

on account of Disc Degenerative Disease³ .

¶17

3. His contention was that, as against this, the Appeal Medical Board had certified the petitioner as unfit on account of DDD, and not temporarily unfit.

¶18

4. In that view of the matter, we had called upon Mr. Mishra, learned CGSC for the respondents to examine the position.

¶19

5. Today, Mr. Mishra has handed over across the Bar, and also provided to Mr. Pandey, the detailed findings of the SMB and the AMB.

¶20

6. From the perusal thereof, that the impression of the petitioner that he had been declared only temporarily unfit by the SMB is seen to be incorrect. The SMB and the AMB have concurrently found the petitioner to be unfit as he suffers from DDD.

¶21

7. Mr. Pandey, submits that, even in the phase of such concurrent findings, his client is entitled to be examined by a Review Medical Board.

¶22

8. There is no material on record on the basis of which this submission can be sustained. Mr. Pandey has not drawn our attention to any statutory, quasi-statutory or executive provision, or instruction, which would entitle the petitioner to claim a right to a Review

¶23

3 “DDD”, hereinafter

¶24

Signature Not Ver ified

¶25

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 13347/2025 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:08.09.2025 18:30:59

¶26

Medical Board even in the face of concurrent findings by the SMB and the AMB.

¶27

9. In that view of the matter, the material on record does not make out a case for issuance of notice.

¶28

10. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition.

¶29

11. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner from reviving this writ petition, by means of an appropriate application, in the event the petitioner is able to produce materials to indicate that, even after concurrent findings of the SMB and the AMB, the petitioner is entitled to a Review Medical Board.

¶30

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶31

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶32

SEPTEMBER 4, 2025/ ng

¶33

Signature Not Ver ified

¶34

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 13347/2025 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:08.09.2025 18:30:59

Aditya Jha v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Jha v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Kapoor Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

Smt. Gracy Job. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Tilak Singh Pal

M/S. Smart World Communications Vs Commissioner of Central Tax and Cgst Delhi North Commissionerate

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh Harish Chander Raheja

Indian Newspaper Society Vs Union of India & Anr.

P.M. College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.

M/S Gaurav Trading Co. through Proprietor Mr Gaurav Jain Vs Naveen Jain Sole Proprietor of M/S Metalcraft

Union of India through Secretary & Ors. Vs 677635 Ex Wo Raj Kumar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sub Maj Om Chand Retd

Union of India & Ors. Vs Col Ajit Dhaka

Flt. Lt Deeksha Shukla (Retd) Vs Union of India Ministry of Defence & Anr.