Courts cannot interfere with expert medical board opinions invalidating uniformed personnel for persistent obesity absent manifest arbitrariness.

The Petitioner, a Head Constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) since 1995, challenged his medical invalidation from service due to obesity

Since 2016, the Petitioner was placed in the Low Medical Category (LMC) with a BMI of 31.26 and a weight of 105 kg

Despite repeated warnings and counseling by medical boards to reduce weight, his weight increased to 118 kg by 2024

Following evaluations by the Special Review Medical Board (SRMB) and the Departmental Rehabilitation Board (DRB), the Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) on May 3, 2025, declared him "permanently unfit" for service due to chronic obesity

The Petitioner was served notices on February 4, 2026, and March 7, 2026, to show cause or provide a contradictory medical opinion from a Civil Surgeon, which he failed to do

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the invalidation and requested an additional 72 weeks to reduce his weight

1. Whether the Invalidation Medical Board’s decision to declare the Petitioner permanently unfit due to obesity was arbitrary or procedurally flawed

2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an additional 72-week grace period for weight reduction under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instructions dated July 31, 2007

Rule 26(3) and Rule 17 of the ITBP Force Rules, 1994, which govern the procedure for invalidating personnel from service on medical grounds

MHA Instructions for Medical Examination (U.O. NO.I.45024/3/2004-pers-II dated 31.07.2007) and MHA Policy Memorandum dated 07.09.2017, which establish BMI and weight standards for CAPF personnel and the timelines for weight reduction

Principle of Judicial Restraint, asserting that courts should not sit in appeal over the expert opinions of duly constituted medical boards unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by the record

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim for additional time lacked merit because he had been categorized under LMC since 2016, providing him nearly a decade of notice to rectify his condition

Instead of demonstrating improvement, the Petitioner’s weight increased from 105 kg to 118 kg during the monitoring period, which the SRMB characterized as a "negligent attitude"

The Court found that the Respondents followed a rigorous multi-tier evaluation process involving the SRMB, DRB, and IMB, ensuring due process was observed

It rejected the Petitioner’s argument that BMI was the "sole determinative factor," noting that the Petitioner failed to produce any medical opinion from a Civil Surgeon to contradict the IMB’s findings, despite being given specific opportunities to do so

The Court emphasized that for a first-line combat force like the ITBP, physical fitness is an essential requirement for duties in inhospitable terrains, and the Petitioner's failure to meet these standards incapacitated him for such service

The Court concluded that the Petitioner had been granted sufficient time since 2016 to remedy his condition and was not entitled to a further 72-week extension

The prayers for quashing the invalidation order and for a fresh medical board were denied, and all pending applications were disposed of