INDER SETIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the order declaring the petitioner unfit for recruitment/selection to the "Flying Branch" of the Indian Air Force and a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner in the "Flying Branch".

(2.) BRIEF facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner had applied for selection in the "Flying Branch" of the Indian Air Force, pursuant to a publication dated 10th September, 2011, through a Fast Track Selection at the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.

(3.) THE petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board. For the medical examination by the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner was directed to appear on 18th November, 2011 at R.K.Puram, Air Force Head Quarters, Delhi. THE Appellate Medical Board conducted the medical examination of the petitioner at the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. THE result of the Appellate Medical Board was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 25th November, 2011, whereby the petitioner was declared unfit for 09 SSC (M) F(P) "Flying Branch", however, the petitioner was declared fit for 80 AEC/131 GDOC "Technical Branch". Ultimately, the petitioner was declared unfit for the "Flying Branch" on account of having Myopia beyond permissible limits. While communicating the result of the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner was also given the option to have a Review Medical Board. It was, however, clarified that the grant of the Review Medical Board is at the discretion of the Director General, Armed Force Medical Services after considering the merit of the case. THE petitioner, therefore, applied for the Review Medical Board which was allowed and he was re- examined on 12th December, 2011. While requesting for a Review Medical Board, the petitioner had also furnished an OPD Card of the All India Institute of Medical Science in support of his claim that he does not have manifest Myopia. THE Review Medical Board was permitted since there was a variance between the findings of the Appellate Medical Boards Eye Specialist and the Civilian Eye Specialist.