A contrary government-hospital opinion alone does not warrant review of Armed Forces medical findings.

The petitioner had been declared medically unfit for appointment in the Indian Navy by the First Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board, including on the ground of spondylolysis.

His writ petition challenging the refusal to convene a Review Medical Board (“RMB”) was dismissed on 17 February 2026, the Court finding that he had produced no contrary medical opinion and that his representation appeared to seek an RMB only for appointment to an alternate branch.

In the review petition, the petitioner relied on an X-ray conducted at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 20 May 2026, which recorded a normal spinal impression, and contended that the medical disqualification lacked basis.

The respondents stated that the matter had been examined by the Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services (“DGAFMS”), which found no reason to permit an RMB.

The review petition was filed with a delay of 130 days.

Whether the subsequent X-ray opinion from RML Hospital disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 17 February 2026.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a Review Medical Board despite the adverse findings of the First Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board.

Whether the delay of 130 days in filing the review petition ought to be condoned.

The Court applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction, holding that review is not warranted in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record.

It relied on Nitin Jakhar v. Union of India & Others, 2021:DHC:1994-DB, for the principle that medical opinions of private or ordinary government hospitals cannot ordinarily displace the conclusions of specialised Armed Forces medical authorities, who assess candidates against the more rigorous demands of military service.

The Court further applied the principles that medical-fitness determinations by competent military boards must receive due deference, that there must be finality in medical decision-making, and that courts should not dilute the stringent standards prescribed for recruitment to the Armed Forces.

The Court treated the RML X-ray as insufficient to establish an error in the earlier judgment.

The petitioner had already been found unfit by two Armed Forces medical authorities, and the later RML report merely recorded a normal radiological impression; it did not demonstrate that the specialised military assessment of fitness, particularly in relation to the standards applicable to Navy service, was erroneous.

The Court also noted that the DGAFMS had considered the petitioner’s case and found no justification for an RMB.

Applying Nitin Jakhar, the Court held that a contrary opinion from a government hospital could not, by itself, override the considered opinion of the Armed Forces medical boards, particularly where no mala fides or patent defect in the medical process was shown.

Consequently, no error apparent on the face of the record was established, and the delayed review petition disclosed no sufficient basis for interference.

Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, and noting the 130-day delay in filing, it dismissed both Review Petition No. 363/2026 and the application seeking condonation of delay.