VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of the case are that the Petitioner appears to have been recruited by the Respondents after passing the relevant Medical Examination. Thereafter, on his joining the Training Centre, it was found that he was suffering from Bilateral Cubitus Valgus. A Medical Examination was carried out at Landsdawn. He was also subjected to specialized medical tests at the military Hospital Roorkee and Military Hospital Dehrudun. The Senior Advisory surgeon at Military Hospital, Dehrudun examined the case of the Petitioner and opined that the Petitioner, who was 21 years of age at that time, was detected to have Bilateral Cubitus Valgus and, therefore, advised that he was unfit for service. It was also opined that the Petitioner was likely to develop problems during his early training, hence, the Petitioner was unfit. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the DSR regulations for the Army 1987 Edition with special emphasis on Clause (d) which reads as follows:- The medical re-examination immediately on arrival at his unit of recruitment enrolled by a RO and passed fit by a Recruiting Medical Officer is not permissible. Only in exceptional cases, where the medical officer in charge of the case considers it unlikely that a recruit will make an efficient soldier will be medically boarded out before undergoing training. ? ( 3 ) RELIANCE has also been placed on Regulation 428 which states that -?as a general rule men should not be invalided for defects which were present on enlistment. ? Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further emphasized the fact that the Petitioner has not been granted any Disability Pension. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, we find that the petition is without merit. It is within the realm of possibility that a person's affliction may not be detected at the first medical examination or that it could be conveniently ignored for one reason or another. It is trite that it is absolutely essential for all Army personnel to be within prescribed parameters of physical fitness. The Regulations relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner do not prohibit a second physical/medical examination. The intent of the Regulation is that malafide repeated medical examinations should be eschewed. It is trite that it is absolutely essential for all Army personnel to be within prescribed parameters of physical fitness. The Regulations relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner do not prohibit a second physical/medical examination. The intent of the Regulation is that malafide repeated medical examinations should be eschewed. Since the Petitioner had been examined by the Military Hospitals both at Roorkee as well as Dehrudun and the Specialists had found him to be unfit for service, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to take a contrary view in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there are malafides in that persons with similar disabilities have continued in service. Assuming that this is so, one wrong would not justify the perpetration of a second one. ( 5 ) IT seems to us to be undebatable that a person who, from the inception of his employment, did not meet the established medical standards, would be ineligible for payment of Disability Pension. Apart from any other reason, such a person would be taking advantage of his own wrong, which is anathematic to principles of law, natural justice and fairplay. Dismissed.