Disposed¶32

R Archith Sai v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/8697/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical unfitness review; inguinal hernia; post-surgery recovery period; medical board; Appeal Medical Board; Review Medical Board; Navy Flying Branch aspirant; AFCAT-02/2024 Instructions Clause 20(g); Union of India; binding outcome; W.P.(C) 8697/2025; CM APPL. 37260/2025; Delhi High Court; C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul; 02.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conduct a Review Medical Board (agreed for 5 July 2025) and consider the petitioner's case for fitness to join consequent to AFCAT-02/2024, the outcome being binding on both parties; copy of judgment given dasti to counsel. ¶32

R Archith Sai Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an aspirant to the Flying Branch of Navy who was found medically unfit within six weeks of inguinal hernia surgery despite instructions contemplating fitness after 06 months' healing, should have his fitness reconsidered through a Review Medical Board.

¶11

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the dispute and treating the AFCAT Clause 20(g) instructions only as a reference (not a precedent), the court directed the respondents to conduct a Review Medical Board and consider the petitioner's case for fitness to join consequent to AFCAT-02/2024; the court expressly expressed no opinion on merits and made the Review Medical Board's outcome binding on both parties.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Review Medical Board was agreed to be held on 5 July 2025, would proceed on the basis of the petitioner's condition as it stood then, and the respondents were to inform petitioner's counsel of the place and time of reporting.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (C. Hari Shankar, J. with Ajay Digpaul, J.) orally disposed of W.P.(C) 8697/2025 on 02.07.2025. An aspirant to the Navy's Flying Branch, operated upon for inguinal hernia, was declared unfit by a medical board within six weeks of surgery, though counsel relied on Clause 20(g) of the AFCAT-02/2024 Instructions contemplating fitness after 06 months of repair. Without adjudicating merits, and on the respondents' undertaking (explicitly not as a precedent), the court directed constitution of a Review Medical Board for 5 July 2025, assessing the petitioner's condition as it then stood, with its outcome binding on both parties; no opinion was expressed on merits.

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 8697/2025 & CM APPL. 37260/2025 R ARCHITH SAI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

% 02.07.2025

¶10

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 8697/2025 Signing Da te:0 2.07.2025 18:53:35

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

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.

¶18

4. Mr. Kakkar also draws our attention to a notification issued in connection with the Air Force Common Admission Test (AFCAT02/2024) 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:

¶19

“20. Gastrointestinal System

¶20

(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.”

¶21

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.

¶22

6. Mr. Kakkar, on instructions, agrees to the said submission.

¶23

7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the dispute, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 8697/2025 Signing Da te:0 2.07.2025 18:53:35

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

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).

¶28

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.

¶29

9. Mr. Kakkar, on instructions, is agreeable to the Review Medical Board being held on 5 July 2025.

¶30

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.

¶31

11. The Review Medical Board would proceed on the basis of the condition of the petitioner as it is today.

¶32

12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

13. Let a copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned Counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

¶34

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶35

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶36

JULY 2, 2025/ dsn