Suppression of prior medical history justifies denial of military appointment despite subsequent medical fitness.

The petitioner joined the National Defence Academy (NDA) 145 Course on 23 April 2021 but was recommended for withdrawal on medical grounds on 24 December 2022 after suffering a stress fracture of the left neck of the femur during training.

The invaliding medical proceedings ultimately found him permanently unfit for further military service and were finally accepted by the competent authority on 26 February 2024.

Thereafter, the petitioner qualified for appointment as Assistant Commandant in the Indian Coast Guard after being declared medically fit by the Army Hospital (Research & Referral), New Delhi, and also qualified in the CDS-II Examination, 2025, securing merit rank 111.

However, he was not issued an appointment/joining order for the IMA-161 course.

The respondents attributed this to his failure to disclose his earlier medical invalidment and hospitalisation/injury in the Medical Examination Report on Entry.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 seeking appointment and permission to join the Indian Military Academy.

Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure of his prior medical invalidment from the NDA and his hospitalisation/injury constituted suppression of material information in the recruitment process.

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent declaration of medical fitness by military medical authorities nullified or rendered irrelevant his earlier medical invalidment.

Whether failure to issue a prior show-cause notice or communicate reasons vitiated the respondents’ decision not to issue the appointment/joining order.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing his appointment to and admission in the IMA-161 course.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, subject to the principle that equitable and discretionary writ relief is generally unavailable to a candidate who obtains an appointment or selection through suppression or misrepresentation.

The CDS-II Examination notification dated 28 May 2025 disqualified candidates previously removed from training institutions on disciplinary grounds or for lack of officer-like qualities, but did not expressly list prior medical unfitness as an independent disqualification.

Nevertheless, the Court held that truthful disclosure of medical history specifically sought in the medical examination form is material to determining present medical suitability.

Relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Court considered the effect of vague or non-specific queries on alleged suppression.

It also relied on G.C. Abhimanyu Singh v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6864, and Harsh Chauhan v. Border Security Force, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7799, for the principles that suppression of prior medical disqualification or injury can justify denial or cancellation of appointment, particularly in disciplined forces.

The petitioner’s reliance on proportionality principles from Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620, was not accepted as sufficient to warrant relief.

Although the petitioner had disclosed his earlier NDA attendance in the application form and was later declared medically fit, the Court distinguished present medical fitness from truthful disclosure of prior medical history.

The Medical Examination Report expressly asked whether he had been discharged as medically unfit from any branch of the Armed Forces and whether he had ever been hospitalised for any illness, operation or injury; he answered “No” to both questions despite his prior medical invalidment and known injury/hospitalisation.

The Court held that this information was material because disclosure would have enabled the examining authorities to assess whether the earlier disability persisted or affected eligibility for the present entry.

Later fitness certificates could not cure the non-disclosure, since the relevant medical history had not been placed before the authorities for comprehensive evaluation.

The Court also found that the petitioner was aware of the invaliding proceedings and his discontinuance from the NDA, irrespective of whether the final approval had been separately served upon him.

Since no appointment order had been issued and the petitioner’s name was only in a provisional list subject to completion of medical and recruitment formalities, the absence of a show-cause notice caused no prejudice.

His subsequent medical fitness did not erase the suppression or entitle him to appointment.

The Court further held that no prior show-cause notice was necessary in the circumstances because the recruitment process remained incomplete and no appointment had been made.

The writ petition seeking issuance of an appointment order and permission to join the IMA-161 course was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of.