ORDER C.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 18-3-1997 (Annexure P-2) as also the order dated 5-4-1999 (Annexure P-4) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of disability pension has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army in Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers on 27-2-1991. It is his assertion that on successful completion of training at 3 EME Centre at Bhopal and College of Material Management at Jabalpur he was posted as Sepoy (Store Keeper Technical). Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 12-3-1996 and it was found that the petitioner was suffering from non organic psychosis. Thereafter a discharge slip was issued to him on 6-4-1996 and from perusal of the discharge slip it is apparent that he was invalidated out of service on account of low medical category 'EEE' (Psychological). His disability is more than 20%. Petitioner made request for grant of disability pension which as stated earlier has been rejected by the impugned orders. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and disability pension is sought to be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the disease i.e., non-organic psychosis, which resulted into the petitioner's discharge is not attributable to the military service. 4. Rule 173 of the Pension Regulation which inter alia provides for condition for grant of disability pension, reads as follows :-- "173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 percent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix II." 5. Rule 7 (a) and (b) of Appendix as referred to above reads as follows:-- "7. In respect of the diseases, the following rules will be observed:-- (a) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. Rule 7 (a) and (b) of Appendix as referred to above reads as follows:-- "7. In respect of the diseases, the following rules will be observed:-- (a) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. (b) A disease which has led to an individual discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds for reasons to be recorded that disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service." 6. It is not in controversy that the disability of the petitioner is more than 20 percent. Further it is beyond any controversy that the petitioner has been discharged on account of the disease which has been diagnosed as non organic psychosis. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any note was made regarding the disease of the petitioner at the time of acceptance for military service. Further the Medical Board has no where opined that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination, prior to acceptance of service. Medical Board has, however, opined that the disease non organic psychosis is not attributable to the Military service. 7. Mr. Ghildiyal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discharged from service on account of the disease and in view of Rule 7 (b) of Appendix II of Pension Regulation, disease will be deemed to have been arisen in service in the absence of any note by Medical Board that the disease for which petitioner is suffering i.e., 'non organic psychosis' could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service. He points out that no note regarding the same was made at the time of petitioner's acceptance for military service. 8. Mrs. He points out that no note regarding the same was made at the time of petitioner's acceptance for military service. 8. Mrs. Nair appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that whether a particular disease is attributable to the military service or not is a question, determination of which, requires expertise and the Medical Board having once recorded the opinion that the same is not attributable to the service, this Court having its own inherent limitation, should not interfere with the same. In support of her submission she has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Rohini Prasad Lal Bihari Ram v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 MPLJ 268 , and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as follows :-- "The opinion of the Medical Board is the opinion of experts in the field, which has been arrived at after examining the petitioner and his past history, which cannot be substituted by a contrary opinion without any material, as the law is well settled, but in the absence of cogent material the Court cannot act as expert body. It is not the case of the petitioner that the report of the Medical Board is biased or mala fide. The petitioner has also not placed any expert opinion contrary to the opinion of the Medical Board. Besides, the petitioner has also not placed any material to demonstrate that other military personnel, like the petitioner, also suffered with the same disease while working in the field area of high altitude of 5000 ft.. Hence in the absence of cogent material, this Court is of the opinion that no interference can be made in the order of refusal to grant disability pension to the petitioner." 9. Neither on principle nor on precedent, I am inclined to accept the submission of Mrs. Nair. In my opinion Clause 7 (b) of Appendix II creates a legal fiction and the purpose of the legal fiction is that the disease, which has led to discharge of an individual will be deemed to have been arisen in service, in the absence of the same being mentioned at the time of petitioner's acceptance to military service or in the absence of any note by the Medical Board that the disease could not have been detected prior to acceptance for service. Condition precedent for application of legal fiction is satisfied in the present case whereas conditions which are necessary to bring out the case from the net of legal fiction do not exist. Petitioner has been discharged from service on account of the disease which has been diagnosed as 'non organic psychosis'. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any note of the disease was made at the time of acceptance of the petitioner for military service. Further Medical Board has not stated that the disease could not have been detected on examination prior to acceptance for service. Natural corollary of the legal fiction in my considered opinion is that the disease has arisen in service. 10. The point raised in the present writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ex Naik Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. No. 1731/95 and in its order dated 17-5-1996, this Court held as follows :-- "Admittedly, the petitioner suffered the disability while he was performing active duties. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Medical Board (Annexure P-1) that the disease of the petitioner could not have been detected at the time of his entrance medical test, this indicates that the petitioner was not suffering from any disease or disability at the time of recruitment to the Indian Army. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Rule 7 (b) of the Pension Regulations." I am told that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed in Letters Patent Appeal, but the same has been dismissed. 11. Authority of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Prasad (supra) relied on by Mrs. Nair that the opinion of the Medical Board is not lightly to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that the authority relied on has no bearing in the present case. True it is that Court is considered expert of experts but this principle has its own inherent limitation and bearing in mind the same Courts do not interfere with the finding of the expert body in absence of cogent materials to the contrary. True it is that Court is considered expert of experts but this principle has its own inherent limitation and bearing in mind the same Courts do not interfere with the finding of the expert body in absence of cogent materials to the contrary. Here in the present case the disease which led to the petitioner's discharge shall be deemed to have arisen in service on account of legal fiction created by Clause 7 (b) of Appendix II of the Pension Regulation and not the ground that the opinion of the Medical Board is erroneous. The provision of the aforesaid rule was not the subject matter of the consideration in the case referred to above. In fact, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Prasad (supra) in W.P. No. 1731/95 referred to above. 12. In the result, impugned order dated 8-3-1997 (Annexure P-2) as also the order dated 5-4-1999 (Annexure P-4) are quashed, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension, treating that the disease which led to petitioner's discharge is attributable to military service, in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.