MONISH N ARADHYA, vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2229 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MONISH N. ARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
C/O. HEMALATHA M.C.
RESIDING AT NO. 1376
TH ND
5 CROSS, 2 MAIN ROAD
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM
LAKSHMIPURAM POST
MYSURU - 570 004
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S. PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE DEFENCE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
TH
OFFICE AT 25067-70, 5 FLOOR
KARTAVYA BHAVAN-2
NEW DELHI – 110 001
2. SPECIAL MEDICAL BOARD
COMMAND HOSPITAL AIRFORCE
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
JOGUPALYA
BRIGADE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 007
3. INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY)
ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH
RTG 6 (SP) WING 1, WEST BLOCK - III
RK PURAM, NEW DELHI – 110 066
4. APPELLATE MEDICAL BOARD
HOSPITAL ROAD
CHANAN SINGH PARK
DELHI CANTONMENT
NEW DELHI
DELHI – 110 010
5. INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF
MOD (ARMY)
ADJUTANT GENERAL’S BRANCH
DTE GEN OF MEDICAL SERVICES
RD
(ARMY/DGMS-5A) ‘A’ BLOCK, 3 FLOOR
DEFENCE OFFICE COMPLEX
KG MARG
NEW DELHI – 110 001
6. REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD
ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGE
SOUTHERN COMMAND
SOLAPUR-PUNE HIGHWAY
(NEAR RACE COURSE)
PUNE – 411 040
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W
SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGSPC)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER/JUDGEMENT DATED 17/09/2026, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.27969/2026 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 17.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.27969/2026 (GM-RES).
2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition, inter alia ,
impugning an order dated 17.08.2026 issued by the Directorate
General of Recruiting, Adjutant General's Branch, Integrated
Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) communicating the
decision of the competent authority not to refer the appellant's case
to the Review Medical Board [ RMB ] for examining the medical
condition of 'Left Small Kidney'. The appellant disputes that he
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
suffers from the said condition. Therefore, he filed the said petition
with a prayer to direct the respondents to constitute an RMB to
conduct a fresh ultrasound examination of his left kidney by a
senior specialist in Radiology.
3. The controversy arises in the context of the appellant’s
rejection by the Indian Army on the ground of his medical condition.
The appellant had applied for recruitment in the Indian Army and
st
had secured 51 rank in the merit list. He was required to undergo
a medical examination by the Special Medical Board [ SMB ]
constituted for the said purpose. The SMB found that the appellant
was unfit for three reasons: i) Small Kidney (left); ii)
Thrombocytopenia; and iii) Left Cervical Rib.
4. The appellant appealed the said decision before the
Appellate Medical Board [ AMB ]. The appellant was medically re-
examined. The AMB did not find two of the medical conditions for
which the appellant was declared unfit – Thrombocytopenia and
Left Cervical Rib. However, it affirmed that the appellant suffered
from the third medical condition, that is, Small Left Kidney.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
5. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the said results
requested for constitution of the RMB. However, the appellant's
request was rejected.
6. The appellant submits that the finding of the SMB and AMB
to the extent that he suffers from the condition of Small Left Kidney
is erroneous. He supported this by securing medical reports from
other hospitals and diagnostic centres. The appellant referred to an
ultrasound scan conducted at Manipal Hospital which indicates that
the size of the Left Kidney is 7.7 to 8 centimetres.
7. Concededly, if the size of the kidney is less than 8
centimetres, the appellant would not satisfy the standard for fitness
set out in the Manual of Medical Standards for Entry into Armed
Forces.
8. The said Manual includes the following standards in respect
of kidneys:
"7.1. Kidneys, Ureters and Urinary Bladder
7.1.1. Unfit
7.1.1.1. Congenital structural abnormalities of
kidneys or urinary tract.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
7.1.1.1.1. Unilateral renal agenesis.
7.1.1.1.2. Unilateral or bilateral
hypoplastic/contracted/ shrunken kidney of size
less than 08 cm.
7.1.1.1.3. Malrotation of kidney.
7.1.1.1.4. Horseshoe kidney.
7.1.1.1.5. Crossed fused/ ectopic kidney.
7.1.1.1.6. Any other congenital anomaly of the
kidney or urinary tract.
7.1.2. Simple single renal cyst of more than 1.5 cm
size in one kidney."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The learned counsel for the appellant had also produced a
Medical Fitness Certificate dated 14.10.2026 issued by the
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and
Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, which reports that
ultrasonography of the left kidney indicates the size as 8.0 x 4.1
centimetres. It is thus the appellant's case that sufficient evidence
establishes that the size of his left kidney is 8 centimetres.
Therefore, it would be apposite that the appellant's case be
referred to the RMB.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
10. The learned counsel also submits that, given the various
reports, the appellant would accept the RMB’s decision as final. He
relies on the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
in Chandan Joshi v. Union of India and others (W.P.(C)
18760/2025) where the court had considered it apposite to direct
that the matter be referred to the RMB.
11. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant's petition on
the ground that reference to the RMB was not a matter of right. The
court also noted that the scan done at the time of the review by the
AMB was a 'Triple Phase CECT Scan', which is stated to be more
accurate than an ultrasound scan. The court also noted that the
ultrasound reports relied upon by the appellant had indicated that
the size of his left kidney was 8 centimetres or less.
12. Given that the 'Triple Phase CECT Scan' had indicated the
size of the appellant's left kidney to be 7 centimetres, the decision
of the competent authority to decline the appellant's request for
review by the RMB cannot be stated to be arbitrary or not informed
by reason.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
13. The Guidelines for Medical Board of Candidates for Cadet
Entries including Women Entry Scheme issued by the Office of the
Director General Armed Forces Medical Services [ DGAFMS ] dated
03.06.2008 also make it clear that the grant of an RMB is a matter
of discretion. Clause 21 of the said Guidelines reads as under:
"21. When a candidate is declared unfit by the
Appeal Medical Board, the result would be
communicated to him/her by the President of
Appeal Medical Board in the prescribed form
as per Appendix 'D'. He/She may
simultaneously be informed that if he/ she
desires to challenge the findings of the Appeal
Medical Board, he/she may do so within one
working day. The candidate shall also be
informed by the President Appeal Medical
Board that holding of the review medical board
will be granted at the discretion of DGAFMS,
based on the merits of the case, and that
Review Medical Board is not a matter of right."
(emphasis supplied)
14. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Satender
1
Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Others , affirming the
aforesaid position that an RMB is not a matter of right, observed as
under:
"17. De-hors the above, in terms of para 22 of the
Manual reproduced hereinabove, the reference of
any candidate for recruitment like the petitioner
1
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1886
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
herein to the RMB is certainly is not a matter of
right. The same is in fact dependent upon various
other factors contained in the Manual and the
medical opinion rendered by the specialized experts
of the respondents. As such, the same is indeed
subjective."
15. Undisputedly, the competent authority is authorized to take
the decision whether to refer the appellant's case to the RMB. This
Court cannot review the competent authority's decision on the
merits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The competent authority's decision cannot be faulted on the ground
of arbitrariness. Further, there is no allegation that the decision is
capricious or mala fide .
16. The appellant's reliance on the decision in Chandan Joshi
( supra ) is misplaced. The said decision was rendered in the facts of
that case. The said decision cannot be considered authority for the
proposition that, in every case where the applicant has a medical
report that varies from the AMB's decision, reference must
necessarily be made to the RMB.
17. We find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single
Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60175-DB
WA No. 2229 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669902026
18. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory
application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5