Army Aspirant’s 7-Cm Kidney Finding Doesn’t Entitle Him To A Review Board, Karnataka HC Says

In brief

The question

Whether the competent authority’s refusal to refer the appellant’s case to an RMB was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be interfered with in judicial review

The court held

The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal.

It also directed

The pending interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The appellant, who had secured 51st rank in an Indian Army recruitment merit list, was declared medically unfit by the Special Medical Board for three conditions, including a small left kidney. The Appellate Medical Board rejected two of those findings but upheld the finding concerning the left kidney

¶ 3–4

The appellant sought a Review Medical Board (RMB), relying on external medical reports, including one recording the kidney’s size as 8.0 × 4.1 cm. His request was declined

¶ 5–9

The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition challenging that decision; the appellant appealed

¶ 1–2, 11

02Issues

i.Whether the competent authority’s refusal to refer the appellant’s case to an RMB was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be interfered with in judicial review

¶ 12, 15

ii.Whether the appellant’s differing medical reports entitled him to a reference to an RMB

¶ 6–10, 13–16

03Law Applied

The Manual of Medical Standards for Entry into the Armed Forces treats a unilateral hypoplastic, contracted, or shrunken kidney measuring less than 8 cm as a disqualifying condition

¶ 8

Under clause 21 of the DGAFMS Guidelines dated 3 June 2008, an RMB is granted at the discretion of the DGAFMS, based on the merits of the case, and is not a matter of right

¶ 13

Satender Kumar Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1886, likewise recognises that referral to an RMB is not a right and depends on relevant factors and expert medical opinion

¶ 14

Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit the Court to reassess the merits of the competent authority’s decision absent a ground such as arbitrariness; the Court also considered Chandan Joshi v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 18760/2025, as a decision confined to its facts

¶ 15–16

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the Triple Phase CECT scan conducted during the AMB review measured the appellant’s left kidney at 7 cm, below the 8 cm threshold in the Manual.

¶ 9, 11–12

The appellant’s ultrasound reports, including the JIPMER certificate, did not displace that finding sufficiently to make the refusal of an RMB arbitrary or uninformed

¶ 9, 11–12

Because referral to an RMB is discretionary, the differing reports did not, by themselves, create an entitlement to further review.

¶ 13–16

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the competent authority’s decision and held that Chandan Joshi did not establish a general rule requiring an RMB whenever an applicant produces a conflicting medical report

¶ 13–16