Subsequent civil medical reports cannot override the finality of Armed Forces recruitment medical opinions.

The Petitioner applied for recruitment to the Indian Air Force as a Medical Assistant (Airmen Intake 02/2026).

After qualifying the Phase-I and Phase-II examinations and physical tests, he underwent an initial medical examination on 30.01.2026, where he was declared unfit on four counts: Irregular Rhythm, Elevated Serum Uric Acid, Genu Varum, and Acne Vulgaris.

He appealed to the Appeal Medical Board (AMB), which, on 24.03.2026, declared him unfit solely on account of "Elevated Serum Uric Acid".

The Petitioner subsequently obtained medical reports from the District Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, and PGIMS, Rohtak, which showed his uric acid levels were within normal limits.

He challenged the AMB’s decision, seeking a direction for a Review Medical Board or a fresh medical examination.

1. Whether subsequent medical reports from civil hospitals can displace the findings of a specialized Appeal Medical Board (AMB) conducted under the Armed Forces recruitment framework.

2. Whether the failure of the AMB certificate to disclose the precise numerical value of the biochemical parameter constitutes a procedural infirmity.

3. Whether judicial review is warranted to interfere with the medical expert opinion of the Armed Forces.

The Court applied the prescribed Physical/Medical Standards for Airmen recruitment, which mandate baseline biochemistry (including Serum Uric Acid) and establish that Armed Forces medical authorities are the final judges of fitness, with standards that may vary from civil standards.

The Court relied on the principle established in SSC & Ors. v. Aman Singh (2024:DHC:8441-DB), which held that while judicial review of medical opinions is not excluded, the Court must exercise restraint and only interfere in cases of substantial infirmity, such as breach of procedure, lack of specialists, or disregard of material investigations.

The Court reasoned that civil hospital reports obtained outside the service recruitment framework do not invalidate the findings of the AMB, as service medical authorities are the final authorities under the recruitment scheme.

Regarding the omission of the numerical uric acid value in the certificate, the Court found no material evidence suggesting that the governing framework required such disclosure or that its absence vitiated the opinion.

The Court further held that even if the elevated uric acid reading was "transient" or "curable," the medical unfitness determined during the official recruitment process remains legally sustainable because the standards expressly treat uric acid as a relevant parameter for evaluation.

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or lack of specialists as required by the Aman Singh precedent to justify judicial intervention.

The Court concluded that the decision-making process of the competent service medical authorities was not vitiated by any patent infirmity and declined the prayer for a fresh medical examination.