Judgment ( 1. ) QUESTIONING the pregnability and substantiality of the order dated 3/7/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 2039/2003 the present writ appeal has been preferred under section 2 (1) of the madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity the Act ). ( 2. ) BEREFT of unnecessary details the facts which are essential to be exposited are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was selected for the enrolment as Soldier Technical and was recruited in Corps of Signals on 29-1-2002. He had undergone Basic Military Training at ; No. 1 Signal Training Centre, Jabalpur. On 4-3-2002 he became unconscious and carried to the Military Hospital, Jabalpur. Thereafter, he was transferred to command Hospital, Central Command, Lucknow on 9-3-2002. He was examined by a Neurophysician and had undergone 16 Channel awake EEG recording at command Hospital (Central Command) Lucknow. In the investigation it was found that the appellant was suffering from generalized Seizure (interictal epileptiform activity ). After thorough check up by a Neurophysician at Lucknow he was put in the compartment of Medical Category P-5 (Permanent) and was advised not to swim, drive, handle fire arm, work near fire or open machinery. Periodic review was also suggested by the treating physician. Thereafter, he was transferred back to the Military Hospital, Jabalpur. On a request being made the petitioner was again referred to Command Hospital, Lucknow. At Lucknow the petitioner was examined and the Board recommended for invalided out of service in Medical Category P-5. As pleaded he was referred to Army Hospital (Research and Referral) Delhi Cantonment on 1-8-2002 for opinion of Senior advisor (Neurology ). After investigation it was found that he was suffering from generalized Seizure. A Senior Advisor of Neurology had advised him for avoiding climbing tree, swimming, handling firearms or working near naked fire, open machinery or at heights, avoid sleep deprivation, regular anti epilieptic drug theraphy, periodic review by physician, to be invalided out of service in Medical category P-5 (Permanent ). The Senior Advisor expressed the view the Disability generalized Seizure is not attributable to service and was not aggravated by service. On the basis of the aforesaid documentation the appellant was discharged. The legal propriety of the aforesaid order of discharge dated 23-4-2003 was called in question in the writ petition. ( 3. The Senior Advisor expressed the view the Disability generalized Seizure is not attributable to service and was not aggravated by service. On the basis of the aforesaid documentation the appellant was discharged. The legal propriety of the aforesaid order of discharge dated 23-4-2003 was called in question in the writ petition. ( 3. ) IT was contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had examined himself at AIIMS, New Delhi and obtained a certificate to the effect that he was fit for any type of work. He also obtained another certificate from senior Consultant in Radiology and Imaging, NMC, Imaging and Diagnostic Centre. Vimhans. New Delhi to show that he was fit. ( 4. ) THE learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the Senior Advisor, neurology of Army Hospital had diagnosed that the appellant was suffering from generalized Seizure and there was no allegation of mala fide. The learned Single judge took note of the fact that the opinion expressed was unequivocal by the authority of the Military Hospital that he was not fit for military services. Being of this view the learned Single Judge declined to interfere. ( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. ( 6. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erred in taking into consideration the official documents that the appellant was suffering from Generalized Seizure, though he had been able to produce medical certificates to highly placed authorities that he was fit. It is contended by him that when there are two sets of opinion, the opinion that favoured the petitioner should have been accepted and he should not have been discharged from service. ( 7. ) TO appreciate the submissions raised by Mr. Ghildiyal, learned counsel we have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also perused the opinion given by the Senior Medical Advisor from which it is perceivable that the petitioner is suffering from Generalized Seizure and required to be invalided out from service. The appellant has produced the documents from aiims and NMC Diagnostic Centre, Vimhans, New Delhi. The learned Single judge has opined that when there are two sets of opinion, the opinion of Senior advisor of Neurology- Military Hospital should be given emphasis upon and accepted. 9. The appellant has produced the documents from aiims and NMC Diagnostic Centre, Vimhans, New Delhi. The learned Single judge has opined that when there are two sets of opinion, the opinion of Senior advisor of Neurology- Military Hospital should be given emphasis upon and accepted. 9. On a perusal of documents brought on record that it is perceptible that the appellant was not referred to AIIMS by any doctor or by the institution. As it appears the petitioner had himself visited the doctor and obtained the opinion. The opinion of the AIIMS is that the episode is unlikely to be seizure. The other opinion of NMC Diagnostic Centre relates to C. T. Scan of the brain. It is mentioned in the report that is not a diagnosis and has to be clinically correlated. The Senior Advisor has recorded the history of the appellant which shows that there had been episodic loss of consciousness. The investigation conducted by him reads as under :-"investigation : Sleep deprived EEG dt. 8-8-2002 generalized spike and slow wave discharge (4 Hz.) seen suggestive of generalized seizure (Focusing 8-8-2002 at 2:45:10 refers)Video EEG Awaki Record dt. 13-8-2002 generalized spike and slow wave discharge (4 Hz.) seen suggestive of generalized seizure (on vide eeg record with protracts photograph)MRI Brain 1510/02 dt. 29 August, 2002- Normal Study of the Brain. " After recording so he recommended as under :- "1. Tab Sodvalproate 1 BD for one week followed by 1 TDS for minimum three year seizure free period. 2. Avoid climbing trees, swimming, handling firearm or working near naked fire, open machinery or at heights 3. Avoid sleep deprivation. 4. Regular antiepileptic drug therapy. 5. Periodic review by physician 6. To be invalided out of service in P-5 Permanent 7. Pre 1 MB counselling. " 10. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a passage from the book neurology in Clinical Practice, Principles of Diagnosis and Management by walter G. Bradley :- "epileptiform discharges are spikes or sharp waves that occur interictally in patients with epilepsy and sometimes in people who do not have seizures but have a genetic predisposition to epilepsy. Epileptiform discharges may be focal or generalized depending on the seizure type. " 11. Be it noted that the opinion of the Senior Advisor is detailed as it records the history of the patient, investigation and the opinion. The opinion is categorical and unequivocal. Epileptiform discharges may be focal or generalized depending on the seizure type. " 11. Be it noted that the opinion of the Senior Advisor is detailed as it records the history of the patient, investigation and the opinion. The opinion is categorical and unequivocal. The opinion of NMC Diagnostic Centre relates to c. T. Scan. Generalized seizure can occur even when the C. T. Scan is normal as it depends upon any of the electroencephalographic abnormality which necessarily may not have any nexus with any kind of cerebral lesions such as infarction, haemorrhage, tumor, or abscess. It may depend on epileptiform of discharge. This has been so stated in the book to which we have referred earlier. 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis the discharge of the appellant by the respondents cannot be found fault with and accordingly, the same does not brook any interference. Therefore, we concur with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The inevitable result is dismissal of the writ appeal in limine which we direct. Writ appeal dismissed.