HC Upholds Medical Board Opinion in Agni Veer Recruitment Case
- Blog|News|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 13 May, 2026

Case Details: Shivansh Singh vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 847 (HC-Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Kumar Birla & Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
-
Amal Darsingh for the Appellant.
-
Prem Narayan Rai for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant applied for the post of Agni Veer (General Duty) in the Indian Army, cleared the preliminary written examination and physical test, and was medically examined, where he was declared unfit due to Onychomycosis in the right index finger; on review at Military Hospital, Prayagraj, he was again declared unfit.
Thereafter, he obtained a subsequent medical report from respondent no.4, a dermatology specialist at a government medical college, opining that Onychomycosis is non-communicable and curable, and sought a fresh Medical Board on that basis.
In a writ petition seeking a direction to constitute a Medical Board for re-examination, the Single Judge called for a personal affidavit from respondent no. 4, who also appeared. Respondent-authorities produced instructions showing that Army doctors (MO) had declared appellant unfit, Senior Medical Officer (SRMO) had confirmed disability on review, and a specialist at Military Hospital, Prayagraj, had also declared him unfit; writ petition was dismissed.
It was noted that since the recruitment process had been carried out as per the prescribed procedure whereunder medical fitness of candidates had been tested by a duly constituted Medical Board, report of Medical Board was not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on basis of a claim sought to be set up by appellant on basis of some subsequent report procured by him from another medical practitioner.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a claim based on a subsequent medical report produced by the candidate would not override or set aside the expert opinion of the Medical Board set up under the procedure for a recruitment process. Thus, the appeal against the Single Judge’s order was to be dismissed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Md. Arshad Khan General v. State of UP (2020) 8 ADJ 235 (para 11)
- Vivek Kumar v. State of UP (2020) 140 ALR 330 (para 12).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA