Facts
The Petitioner sought induction into the Indian Air Force (IAF) as Agniveer Vayu (Science Subjects)
Source reference: p. 1After qualifying the written exam, she underwent medical examinations. Although she was initially cleared of six medical grounds by an Appeal Medical Board (AMB) on 19.08.2025, she was subsequently declared unfit during a mandatory pre-enrolment medical examination on 30.12.2025 due to "Accessory Nipple Bilateral" (ANB).
Source reference: p. 2This finding was affirmed by an AMB on 06.02.2026 based on the opinion of a Graded Specialist (General Surgery).
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner challenged this disqualification, relying on a favorable outpatient opinion from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, dated 10.02.2026.
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
Whether the medical findings of the Armed Forces Medical Board regarding recruitment are subject to judicial review when conducted by the requisite specialists
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 8Whether a civilian medical opinion from AIIMS can displace the specialist-backed decision rendered by the Armed Forces medical authorities under service-specific standards
Source reference: p. 10 / para. 13Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principles from SSC & Ors. v. Aman Singh (2024: DHC:8441-DB), which established that medical standards for disciplined forces are more stringent and distinct from civilian standards, and judicial review is limited to procedural breaches, absence of specialists, or disregard of the board's own evidence.
Source reference: p. 3-7The court further applied Para 3.14.2(c) of Chapter 14 (Assessment of Women Candidates) of IAP 4303 (6th Edition), which explicitly lists "Polythelia (Accessory nipple)" as a ground for medical unfitness.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The court reasoned that the standards of fitness for disciplined forces are higher and stricter, creating an "irrebuttable presumption" that judges should defer to expert medical boards.
Source reference: p. 4It noted that the Petitioner was indeed examined by a Graded Specialist (General Surgery), satisfying procedural requirements.
Source reference: p. 7The court clarified that the earlier fitness certificate was temporary and expressly subject to medical fitness at the pre-enrolment stage.
Source reference: p. 8Regarding the AIIMS opinion, the court held that service medical standards are at variance with civil standards; therefore, a private or external government hospital certificate cannot displace a specialist-backed decision rendered within the recruitment framework.
Source reference: p. 3, 10The court emphasized that it cannot examine the "suitability" of a candidate regarding a specific ailment, as that assessment lies solely within the expertise of the Force.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural infirmity or lack of specialist assessment.
The court held that the service-specific medical opinion of the Armed Forces authorities is final and cannot be superseded by a civilian opinion from AIIMS.
Source reference: para. 13No ground for interference was found within the limited parameters of judicial review.
Source reference: para. 14Original Court PDF
RajneshvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in