JUDGMENT 1. - These two special appeals one by Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu and another by the State of Rajasthan, are directed against the judgment & order dated 1312-2001 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the directions as contained in the judgment to the effect that respondent No. 3 in the writ petition i.e. Jitendra Singh Sandu appellant herein shall be examined once again by an independent Medical Board outside the State of Rajasthan and that he shall be examined at Army Hospital i.e. Army R & R Institution and Hospital, Delhi Cantt, the report shall be sent to the Government and if the respondent No. 3 i.e. the appellant herein is not found fit, the Government shall reconsider the appointment of respondent No. 3 in RPS cadre afresh and shall take all necessary legal action and until and unless the report is sent to the Government of Rajasthan the other prayers as mentioned in the writ petition cannot be accepted at this stage. Whereas both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and as identical points are involved therein, we propose to decide both these appeals by this common judgment and order as under : 2. A combined competitive examination was held in the year of 1999 for recruitment to the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services. One Shri Satya Prakash who was the original petitioner and the appellant herein namely Jitendra Singh Sandu both had appeared in this examination alongwith other candidates. The result of this examination was declared an 30-12-2000. Shri Satya Prakash the original petitioner was positioned at S. No. 78 in the order of merit, whereas the appellant herein namely Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu was placed at S. No. 64 i.e. at a position higher than the original petitioner in the merit list. Both the candidates belong to Other Backward Class (OBC) category. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 provides for physical fitness of the candidates to which they are required to be subjected after the recruitment and before the appointment. Rule 14 of the Rules is reproduced as under : "14. Both the candidates belong to Other Backward Class (OBC) category. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 provides for physical fitness of the candidates to which they are required to be subjected after the recruitment and before the appointment. Rule 14 of the Rules is reproduced as under : "14. Physical Fitness - A candidate for direct recruitment to the Service, must be in good mental or bodily health and free from any mental or physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties as a member of Service and if selected must produce a certificate to that effect from a Medical Authority notified by the Government for the purpose. The Appointing Authority may dispense with production of such certificate in the case of candidate promoted in the regular line of promotion, or who is already serving in connection with the affairs of the State if he has already been medically examined for the previous appointment and the essential standards of medical examination of the two posts held by him are to be comparable for efficient performance of duties of the new post and his age has not reduced his efficiency for the purpose. Provided that the minimum standards for height and Chest-girth, shall be as follows : Height > Chest-girth (expanded) > Expansion > For men 165 Cms. 84 Cms. 5 Cms. For women 150 Cms. 79 Cms. 5 Cms. Provided further that the minimum standard for height and chest for wireless organisation shall be as follows : Height Chest Expansion 1. For men 160 Cms. 82 Cms. 5 Cms. 2. For women 150 Cms. 79 Cms. 5 Cms. 3. It would be thus seen that the candidate for direct recruitment to the police service is required to be in good mental or bodily health and free from any mental or physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties as a member of Service. Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu appellant herein was appointed to the Rajasthan Police Service on the basis of his selection and the merit position as aforesaid after his medical examination vide order dated 15-6-2001 wherein his name was included at S. No. 2. 4. Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu appellant herein was appointed to the Rajasthan Police Service on the basis of his selection and the merit position as aforesaid after his medical examination vide order dated 15-6-2001 wherein his name was included at S. No. 2. 4. The appointment given to Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu vide order dated 15-6-2001 as above was challenged by Shri Satya Prakash as original petitioner and a direction was sought that Satya Prakash may be appointed on the basis of his direct recruitment to the RPS on the strength of his selection as aforesaid and his merit position because Shri Sandu was medically not fit u/r 14 of Physical Fitness. The writ petition was filed on 18-6-2001. The original petitioner Shri Satya Prakash came up with the case that Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu had been medically examined in February, 2001 and he gathered that the Medical Board had noted certain defects against Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu. The first Medical Board had found Shri Sandu to be fit for RAS and Allied Services but did not make any mention about his fitness to the Rajasthan Police Service. Shri Sandu was subjected to another medical examination before another Medical Board by the Government in May, 2001 and this Medical Board declared him to be medically fit for appointment to the RPS. Shri Satya Prakash had challenged the medical fitness of Shri Sandu and submitted that he was not medically fit and the Government could not appoint him to RPS on the basis of the opinion rendered by the second Medical Board held in May, 2001. It is his further claim that had Shri Sandu not been appointed, Shri Satya Prakash i.e. original petitioner was the next person amongst the members of the OBC to be appointed and had he not been appointed, Shri Satya Prakash would have certainly been appointed to the RPS. It is on that basis that the appellant Shri Satya Prakash had filed the writ petition challenging the opinion as was given by the second Medical Board.The claim of the petitioner was traversed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply filed on 20-7-2001 while Shri Sandu as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition filed separate reply dated 16-7-2001. 1 and 2 in their reply filed on 20-7-2001 while Shri Sandu as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition filed separate reply dated 16-7-2001. On 24-11-2001 when the matter came up before the learned single Judge, he passed the detailed order and issued directions that Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu who was respondent No. 3 in the petition shall make it convenient to appear before the Incharge of the Army Hospital i.e. Army R & R Institution and Hospital, Delhi Cantt and the Incharge of the Hospital shall constitute a Board to examine Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu immediately within a reasonable time and when Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu appears before him, his medical examination shall be completed within 7 days from the date of this order dated 24-11-2001 the medical examination shall be completed and report shall be sent to the Court as well as to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- initially to the respondent No. 3 for his expenses of visiting Delhi and if any other expenses are to be incurred by Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu in regard to the medical examination, the petitioner undertook to pay the same in addition to any other expenses which may be incurred in this connection. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition was ordered to be listed for further proceedings on 10-12-2001. The registry was also asked to request the Incharge of the Hospital to examine Shri Sandu and that the Photostat copy of the order dated 24-11-2001 immediately sent to the Hospital.Against this order dated 24-11-2001, an appeal was preferred by Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu and this DB SAW No. 1070/2001 was decided on 6-12-2001, whereby the parties were directed to argue the matter finally before the learned single Judge on 10-12-2001 irrespective of the fact whether Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu had appeared before the Medical Board or not as directed by the order dated 24-11-2001. After the order dated 6-12-2001 as above, the matter was again heard by the learned single Judge on merits on 13-12-2001. After the order dated 6-12-2001 as above, the matter was again heard by the learned single Judge on merits on 13-12-2001. The writ petition was decided by the learned single Judge with the directions that Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu shall be again examined by an independent Medical Board outside the State of Rajasthan at Army Hospital i.e. Army R & R Institution and Hospital, Delhi Cantt within a period of 15 days from the date of that order and the report shall be sent to the Government and if Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu is not found fit the question of his appointment in the RPS cadre shall be dealt with accordingly and until and unless the report is sent to the Government of Rajasthan the other prayers as mentioned, cannot be accepted. With the directions as above, the writ petition was disposed of on 13-12-2001. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 13-12-2001 passed by the learned single Judge and have also gone through the rules. 6. There is no dispute that the first Medical Board who examined the appellant Shri Jitendra Singh Sandu in February, 2001 consisting of Dr. M.R. Goel as Chairman, Medical Board, Dr. Sudheer and Dr. Kishore as members who had given its report as under: "(i) Fit for RAS & Allieds (ii) Though he has complete Sacrilization of L5-S1, Vertebrae restricting his spinal Terminal Movements & squatting terminally, gait awkward, his hips, knee & ankle movements are normal & no Neurovascular deficiency. He may be considered for RPS if rule so permits. (Dr. M.R. Goel) (Dr. Sudheer) (Dr. Kishore) Chairman Member Medical Board". 7. It has been given out that in this Medical Board there was no doctor of Orthopaedic speciality. This Board had not declared Shri Sandu to be unfit, while holding him eligible for appointment to RAS and allied services. All that has been said about him was that though he has completed sacrilization of L5-S1, vertebrae restricting his spinal terminal movements & squatting terminally, gait awkward, his hips, knee & ankle movements are normal & no neurovascular deficiency and that he may be considered for RPS if rule permits. 8. All that has been said about him was that though he has completed sacrilization of L5-S1, vertebrae restricting his spinal terminal movements & squatting terminally, gait awkward, his hips, knee & ankle movements are normal & no neurovascular deficiency and that he may be considered for RPS if rule permits. 8. In view of this report given by the Medical Board of three doctors in which there was no orthopaedic specialist, the Government considered it proper to send Shri Sandu for medical examination before another Board and this time he was referred for medical examination to a broad-based Medical Board which consisted of seven doctors. Besides the fact that Medical Board which was constituted earlier comprised of three doctors were also party to the second Medical Board, this broad-based Medical Board of seven doctors included Dr. M.K. Mathur, Prof. in Orthopaedic and Research and Rehabilitation Centre, SMS : Dr. Sudheer and Dr. Kishore Kumar as its members, Dr. M.R. Goel as Chairman of the Medical Board, Dr. C.S. Sharma, Prof. & Head Ortho and Dr. Rakesh, Professor & Unit Incharge Ortho, SMS. The report given by this Board is as under : "R-examined on 04-06-2001 Spinal movements are within normal range squatting & cross leg sitting are within normal limits gait is within normal deviation limit, hip, knee & ankle movements are normal no neurovascular deficiency Fit for RAS/RPS/Allieds. (Dr. M.R. Goel) (Dr. C.S. Sharma) (Dr. Rakesh) Prof. & Head Ortho, S.M.S. Prof. & Unit Incharge Ortho S.M.S. (Dr. M.K. Mathur) (Dr. Sudheer Mehra) (Dr. Kishore Kumar) Prof. Ortho & Head Research & Rehabilitation Centre, S.M.S. Member 9. On the basis of this report while Shri Sandu was found to be medically fit for RAS/RPS/Allieds services as a result of his re-examination on 4-6-2001, nothing adverse was detected and rather the Medical Board had noted that his spinal movements were within normal range, squatting and cross leg sitting were within normal limits. Gait is within normal deviation limit, hip, knee and ankle movements are normal, no neurovascular deficiency and that he was fit for appointment to RAS/RPS/Allieds services. 10. Thus, this broad-based Medical Board consisting of 7 doctors including the Professor in Orthopaedic and Professor in Orthopaedic Research & Rehabilitation Centre, clearly opined that spinal movements are within normal range and in uncertain terms Shri Sandu was found fit for RAS/RPS/Allieds services. 10. Thus, this broad-based Medical Board consisting of 7 doctors including the Professor in Orthopaedic and Professor in Orthopaedic Research & Rehabilitation Centre, clearly opined that spinal movements are within normal range and in uncertain terms Shri Sandu was found fit for RAS/RPS/Allieds services. The learned single Judge has taken exceptions to the aforesaid opinion of the Board by saying that while the first Board itself had opined and shown doubt about his fitness for RPS services the second Board had not given any specific opinion in regard to medical status of Shri Sandu about the complete sacrilization of L5-S1 and that the complete sacrilization of L5-S1 means that these two vertebrae i.e. lumbar and Sacral are united and there is no inter-vertebral joint space between these two vertebrae and only that those reasons the movements of L5 and S1 can be hampered in spinal movements which is a permanent defect and therefore, the second report was not correct and that in the second report the important aspects were very conveniently ignored and not specifically referred to. 11. The learned senior counsel Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar appearing for Shri Satya Prakash has supported the view taken by the learned single Judge that there is no specific opinion in the second Medical Board's report with regard to the sacrilization of L5-S1 and therefore the second opinion of the Medical Board has been rightly rejected and the directions had been rightly given directing Shri Sandu to appear before the third Medical Board out of the State of Rajasthan before the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. 12. At the first instance, we find that now there is no question for sending Shri Sandu before the third Medical Board because the second Medical which was a broad-based, comprised of 7 doctors including the Professor of Orthopaedic who have categorically examined the issue and no opinion contrary to that of first Medical Board was expressed. Shri Sandu was thus medically fit for appointment to RAS/RPS/Allieds services and nothing abnormal was detected in any of his examinations and it had also taken into consideration the specific aspect of the matter and the same had been found to be within normal range. Besides these under the scheme of the rules, the medical examination has to be held by the designated authority. Besides these under the scheme of the rules, the medical examination has to be held by the designated authority. The learned single Judge could not have substituted his own opinion for that of expert opinion as has been given by the Medical Board. There is ample authority in the case of University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , in which it has been categorically laid down that the expert opinion should not be interfered with by the courts and the view which has been in this case has been followed and taken in the several subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chancellor Utkal University v. Dr. Bijaynanda Kar, reported in 1994(1) SCT 524 (SC) : (1994) 1 SCC 169 : (1994 Lab IC 231) , Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava v. Suresh Singh, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1404 : (1976 Lab IC 853) , in which it was held that in matters involving consideration of question regarding adequacy or sufficiency of "training" the Public Service Commission, having the benefit of expert opinion, is better situated to judge whether the particular candidate is qualified for a particular post and courts should hesitate to interfere with the decision of the appointing authority, so long as it is exercised bonafide. In the case of Dr. M.C. Gupta v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339 : (1979 Lab IC 296) , in para 7, the Supreme Court has observed that when selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialised field, probing teaching/research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them and it would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. The Court while enforcing the rule of law, should give due weightage to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due regard to its recommendations on which the State Government acted and if the recommendations made by the body of experts keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court should be very slow to interfere with such recommendations. In this very judgment while quoting Shri Jagdish Swaroop the Supreme Court has expressed that Shri Jagdish Swaroop rightly stressed that once the right to appoint belonged to Government, the Court could not usurp it merely because it would have chosen a different person as better qualified or given a finer gloss or different construction to the regulation on the score of a set formula that relevant circumstances had been excluded, irrelevant factors had influenced and such like grounds familiarly invented by parties to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The administration should not be thwarted in the usual course of making appointments because somehow it displeases judicial relish or the Court does not agree with its estimate of the relative worth of the candidates. In para 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed that with these blurred contours of periphery of jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with selections made by an independent body like Public Service Commission to which no mala fides can be attributed. The said Committee comprising of four experts in the field, who presumably knew what constituted teaching/research experience, what institutions are treated prestigious enough, in which teaching/research experience would be treated valuable may examine the rival contentions. The same principle was laid down in the case of Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, reported in 2001(4) SCT 818 (SC) : (2001) 8 SCC 546 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3058 ) holding that the area of interference by Courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or binding rule. 13. It is therefore clear that it is trite law that opinion of the expert is not to be substituted by the Courts and even if two constructions are possible, the construction which has been adopted by the academic or expert body should be followed. 13. It is therefore clear that it is trite law that opinion of the expert is not to be substituted by the Courts and even if two constructions are possible, the construction which has been adopted by the academic or expert body should be followed. Besides this, we may also put on record that apart from the fact that designated authority has been defined under the rules and accordingly there is no question of examination by anybody other than the designated authority for the purpose of medical examination, Shri Bharat Vyas who has appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Defence has today produced a copy of the judgment, has been assigned to the Ministry of Defence for compliance of the Medical Board and the Army Hospital at Delhi Cantt. as stated before us that according to Army Rules, there is no question of such medical examination of a candidate belonging to any of the said services. 14. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that Shri Sandu had already passed a foundation course and had already completed 10 months training as against total period of one year's training for RPS. 15. We therefore find that the directions as given by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Both the appeals are allowed as above. 16. Parties shall bear their own cost.Appeal allowed. *******