JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner who was enrolled in the Army on 17th March, 1987 and mustered as C.F.N./V.M. (M.V.) in Group C’ in Class IV post on 21st May, 1988 is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for disability pension after he was invalided out of service from 14th October, 2000 as the Medical Board found him to be a case of “SCHIZOPHRENIA” in low medical category “EEE” with 40% disability which was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the orders by which his Appeal and Second Appeal have been dismissed. 2. The records of the writ petition indicate that while the petitioner was posted in Bangalore, his behaviour was found to be abnormal and so he was admitted to the Hospital on 3rd June, 2000. He remained in the Hospital upto 15th September, 2000. 3. The Medical Board recommended that the petitioner be invalided out of service in medical category “EEE” (Psychological) in view of the following observation : “This 30 years old serving soldier (EME/CFN/VM(MV) is a case of Schizophrenia (ICD-295) who had presented with an inidions onset and progressive illness characterized by obsessions, compulsions, magical thinking, delusional internity of his beliefs leading to socio-occupational deterioration. His response to intensive therapetic modalities in conjunction with behavioural therapy sessions has been tardy and unsatisfactory. He continuous to exhibit symptoms of the ailment and has poor insight. As such, he is unlikely to make a fit and effective soldier and may well prove to be a liability to the State.” 4. The Medical Board gave its opinion that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the order dated 14th October, 2000 by which he was invalided out of service. He is only concerned with the denial of the disability pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had suffered the disease during the course of his service and so the respondent committed an error in rejecting his case for disability pension. He is only concerned with the denial of the disability pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had suffered the disease during the course of his service and so the respondent committed an error in rejecting his case for disability pension. He further submitted that since no note was made by the Authority about the disability at the time of entry in service, it must be deemed that the disability had arisen in service and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 45894 of 1993 (Ram Baran v. Union of India and Ors.) decided on 1st February, 2005. 6. Sri Tej Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the disability pension as the Medical Board had found as a fact that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and others v. S. Balachandran Nair, (2005) 13 SCC 128 . 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Regulations) deals with primary conditions for the grant of disability pension and is as follows : “173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension.—Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 percent or above. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under rule in Appendix II." 9. Relevant portion in Appendix II reads as follows : “2. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under rule in Appendix II." 9. Relevant portion in Appendix II reads as follows : “2. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified that— (a) the disablement is due to wound, injury or disease which— (i) is attributable to military service; or (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby; (b) the death was due to or hastened by— (i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service, or (ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service. Note: The Rule also covers cases of death after discharge/invaliding from service. 3. There must be a casual connection between disablement or death and military service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded. 4. In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit or reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field service case.” 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Controller of Defence Accounts (supra) after considering the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315 and Union of India and others v. Dhir Singh China Colonel (Retd.), (2003) 2 SCC 382 observed that the High Court fell in error in granting disability pension as the opinion of the Medical Board was clearly to the effect that the disability suffered by the respondent was not attributable to military service. 11. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the Medical Board found as a fact that the disability which led to the petitioner being invalided out of service was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. It is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to sit in Appeal over the judgment of the Medical Board. 12. It is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to sit in Appeal over the judgment of the Medical Board. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the provisions of Rules 7(b) and 7(c) of Appendix-II referred in Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations and contended that since no note was made at the time the petitioner entered in service, the disease should be deemed to have arisen during service. Rules 7(b) & 7(c) are as follows : “7 (b) A disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated, that the 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. 7(c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.” 13. These two Rules were examined by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Keshar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 675 and it was observed : “A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that ordinarily if a disease has led to the discharge of individual it shall 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. An exception, however, is carved out, i.e. if medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated that the disease could not have been detected by Medical Examination Board prior to acceptance for service, the disease would not be deemed to have arisen during service. Similarly, clause (c) of Rule 7 makes the position clear that if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions are due to the circumstances of duty in military service. There is no material placed by the respondent in this regard.” 14. There is no material placed by the respondent in this regard.” 14. The petitioner has not placed any material to show that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. Thus in view of the aforesaid judgment in Keshar Singh (supra), this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 15. The decision in the case of Ram Baran (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner as it was found as a fact that the procedure as required under the Rules had not been followed. It, however, needs to be mentioned that the Court placed emphasis on the fact that no note was made at the time of individual’s acceptance for military service. This aspect was examined by the Supreme Court in Keshar Singh (supra) and it was held that the High Court was not justified in coming to the said conclusion since no material was placed by the individual as required under the Rule 7(c) of the Pension Regulations. 16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for grant of disability pension. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ————