ROSHAN KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3666/2025 ROSHAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Ms. Shweta Soni, Ms. Akansha Singh and Ms. Simran Mehta, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Kaushik, Adv. with Major Anish Muralidhar, Army. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 06.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This petitioner cleared the Combined Defence Services Examination for recruitment to the Armed Forces. Thereafter, he was examined by a Special Medical Board1. The SMB, vide report dated 4 December 2024, found that he had a calculus2 in his left kidney. The matter was referred to an Appellate Medical Board3. The AMB has found that the petitioner had a calculus in his right kidney. 1 “SMB”, hereinafter 2 stone 3 “AMB”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 3666/2025 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:14.05.2025 12:09:21 2. There is no reference, in the report of the SMB to any calculus in the right kidney. Equally, there is no reference in the report of the AMB to any calculus in the left kidney of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner got himself examined by the Military Hospital, Jaipur, which conducted an ultrasonography examination and reported that there was no calculus in either of the kidneys of the petitioner. 4. Major Murlidhar, who appears for the respondent, submits that the report of the AMB should be accorded precedence over the report of the SMB. 5. While, in normal cases, that would be the position, this case presents a peculiar feature in which as Mr. Mehta, very eloquently expressed, the stone has travelled from one kidney to the other between th