JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.K. Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has inter-alia questioned the correctness and validity of the impugned order dated 19.11.1992 passed by the Civilian Staff Officer, Asstt. Director of Personnel (A) for Chief of the Air Staff on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.8.1992, wherein he has assailed the validity of Recruiting Medical Officer’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘R.M.O.’) medical report, declaring the petitioner as a temporary medically unfit (in short referred to as “T.M.U.”) on 4.6.1990. The petitioner has also sought a direction for commanding the respondent No. 1 to consider the real controversy involved in the case of the petitioner as pressed in his representation dated 27.8.1992. 3. Briefly, the essential facts of the case are that the petitioner having requisite qualification and being eligible was selected for the post of Airman (Technical) in the competency test on 16.1.1990 at Lucknow. On 17.1.1990, the petitioner was medically examined and he was found Temporary Medically Unfit on account of his minor ailment in the nose i.e. D.N.S. (delivered nasal septum) and, accordingly, he was advised to get himself operated by a Government Doctor and to report the Airmen Selection Board at Kanpur on 20.2.1990. The petitioner owing to unavoidable reasons could not get his D.N.S. operated and reported the Airmen Selection Board on 20.2.1990. Since the petitioner did not take the medical treatment/get his D.N.S. Operated, he was issued a T.M.U. slip by the R.M.O. with an advice to report on 4.4.1990 after treatment/cure with a certificate issued by a Government Doctor. 4. The petitioner got himself operated for D.N.S. by Professor (Dr) O.P. Gupta, Head of E.N.T. Department, B.H.U. and reported to the Recruiting Medical Officer on 4.4.1990 alongwith a certificate issued by Dr. Gupta. The petitioner was referred to the E.N.T. Specialist after examination by R.M.O., as he had some doubt about petitioner’s cure. The E.N.T. Specialist after examination, returned the petitioner with remarks to the Recruiting Medical Officer, who again issued a T.M.U. slip with the advice to report for review on 4.6.1990. The petitioner again went under treatment of Dr. O.P. Gupta, Head of E.N.T. Department, B.H.U. and after treatment, Dr. Gupta issued a certificate of fitness on 19.5.1990 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). The petitioner again went under treatment of Dr. O.P. Gupta, Head of E.N.T. Department, B.H.U. and after treatment, Dr. Gupta issued a certificate of fitness on 19.5.1990 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). The petitioner appeared before the Recruiting Medical Officer on 4.6.1990 alongwith fitness certificate and the R.M.O. without referring the case of the petitioner to the E.N.T. Specialist, again issued a T.M.U. Slip to the petitioner. 5. It has been argued by the petitioner’s counsel that the Recruiting Medical Officer under prescribed Rules should have obtained remarks from the E.N.T. Specialist again, as on the earlier occasion the R.M.O. when, had felt some doubt about the cure, he referred the petitioner to the E.N.T. Specialist. After referring the matter to the ENT Specialist, the R.M.O. seized the jurisdiction and, therefore, he cannot examine and declare T.M.U. to the petitioner without the opinion of E.N.T. Specialist. Thus, the Recruiting Medical Officer, committed an error by not referring the petitioner for medical review to the E.N.T. Specialist, in case of doubt which was the proper course available to him. To substantiate his contention petitioner has referred the Manual of Medical Examination & Medical Board, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. It is relevant to point out that earlier the petitioner had challenged the validity of declaration of T.M.U. by means of Writ Petition No. 31641 of 1990, which was dismissed summarily on 19.11.1991 and the petitioner’s Special Appeal No. 181 of 1992 was also dismissed on 4.2.1992 with a direction to file a representation to the competent authority and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation on 27.8.1992 to the Directorate of Medical Services (Air), New Delhi. The petitioner received a reply on his representation, mentioning therein that since he was not found medically fit on the date of final review and he was informed about factual position vide C.A.S.B. letter No. 1313/1/Test, dated 16.7.1990 and a suitable reply was also sent to the petitioner vide C.A.S.B. letter No. 1000/1/11/Med, dated 16.1.1992 in response to representation and the petitioner was advised to apply afresh in response to the next advertisement, if willing and otherwise eligible for the same. 7. Before proceeding further it would be apt to refer the relevant portion of the Manual of Medical Examination, on which emphasis has also been laid by the petitioner’s counsel. 7. Before proceeding further it would be apt to refer the relevant portion of the Manual of Medical Examination, on which emphasis has also been laid by the petitioner’s counsel. The relevant portion of the Manual reads as under : “I.A.P. 4303 Manual of Medical Examination and Medical Boards (IInd Edition May, 1987) Page-I (Section-3) Assessment of Candidates for enrolment in I.A.F. Chapter-I General Instruction This chapter deals with medical standards of candidates for recruitment. Candidate who fulfills the laid down medical and physical requirements at the time of recruitment will be assessed in medical category ‘A’. Those who fail to satisfy the standards laid down will be assessed as temporarily or permanently unfit. Temporarily unit cases can be re-examined by the R.M.O. (Recruiting Medical Officer) on production of satisfactory cure certificate. Candidate declared permanently unfit is not to be re-examined by R.M.O. unless ordered by Air H.Q.D.G.M.S. (Air) on the request of candidate. Candidates for recruitment found to be suffering from disease/injury which is likely to be cured in the near future are to be declared temporarily unfit. A period of three months or less may be stipulated for their temporary unfitness at a time. However, the total period of temporary unfitness should not exceed six months. On production of certificate of cure the candidate is to be re-examined and final decision regarding his fitness be taken. Candidate declared temporarily unit for a period of more than two months or declared permanently unfit should be re-examined by the Senior most medical officer before final disposal. Complete medical examination of all the systems will be carried out despite the finding of disqualifying (Temporary or permanent) defects/disease in one or more systems. This is to avoid detection of disease/defects in other system during subsequent examinations either for review of temporary unfit cases or on appeal. In case of doubt regarding fitness of an individual R.M.O. is to refer the individual for specialists opinion and necessary investigation. These candidates can be investigated as in-patient or out-patient as provided for under para 301 of R.M.S.A.F. (1962) on the advice of a specialist. Specialist’s opinion regarding fitness in relation to the disability for which he was referred will be binding on the R.M.O.” 8. These candidates can be investigated as in-patient or out-patient as provided for under para 301 of R.M.S.A.F. (1962) on the advice of a specialist. Specialist’s opinion regarding fitness in relation to the disability for which he was referred will be binding on the R.M.O.” 8. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is imminently clear that in case of doubt regarding fitness of an individual, the R.M.O. has to refer an individual to the Specialist for necessary investigation and the opinion of Specialist regarding fitness in relation to the disability, for which he was referred to, will be binding on the R.M.O. 9. Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the averments made in para 7 of the counter-affidavit and submitted that it is not binding on the R.M.O. to refer/re-refer the case to any Specialist before awarding any disposal of fitness/unfitness or temporary unfitness as per I.A.P. 4303, (supra). The R.M.O. will seek the opinion of Specialist only, in cases, where there is any doubt about the fitness of the candidate, but it was not so in the present case. It is not obligatory to the R.M.O. to seek second opinion or after operation to decide fitness of the candidate unless it is deemed to be required by him. In sub-para (d) of para 7, it has been stated that instruction laid down in I.A.P. 4303 (supra), are only guidelines. The Recruiting Medical Officer is authorized to interpret and apply these guidelines according to the situation/clinical condition of the case and no official guidelines can cater for an individual situation. The R.M.O. under no circumstances loses the jurisdiction or competency over a candidate, even if a latter has been referred by him to a Specialist for opinion once or twice. The competent authority to dispose of the matter of a candidate, as T.M.U./Unfit/Fit is the Recruiting Medical Officer and to arrive at a decision of any type of disposal of the case, he may take an opinion of the Specialist/SMO (Senior Medical Officer). This will be deemed as required by him and hence there was no illegality committed by the R.M.O. by not referring the petitioner again to the E.N.T. Specialist, as after thorough examination he did not feel the necessity to do so. This will be deemed as required by him and hence there was no illegality committed by the R.M.O. by not referring the petitioner again to the E.N.T. Specialist, as after thorough examination he did not feel the necessity to do so. The opinion of a Government Doctor is not binding on the R.M.O. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not declared permanently unfit and the disease was of a curable nature and the petitioner was advised that he was unfit for that entry and he may re-appear in the subsequent selection test, subject to his meeting of other qualification/requirement. The Director General of Medical Services (Air) New Delhi, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 27.8.1992 after going through the entire record and the case history. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that there is no prayer for giving him joining, therefore, no effective relief can be granted at this stage as the selection for the post in question relates to the year, 1990 when the petitioner was about 21 years old and at present he is around 37 years old. 11. Refuting the allegations of the respondent’s counsel, it has been argued by the petitioner’s counsel that once the Recruiting Medical Officer has sent the petitioner to E.N.T. Specialist, therefore, if he had any doubts regarding cure of the ailment, he should have obtained the report of the Specialist and it was not open for him to decide on his own and gave a go-bye to the opinion of the Specialist and the fitness certificate given by the Professor & Head of ENT Service/Unit, Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, the treating Specialist Doctor. 12. At this juncture it would be useful to mention that in Medical Books such as “A Short Text Book of ENT Diseases” by K.B. Bhargava and T.M. Shah it has been written that (DNS) Deviated Nasal Septum occurs very frequently and starts around puberty and reaches full development by the age of 20 years. Treatment is required only if the patient has persistent or recurrent symptoms due to the deviated septum. Permanent relief is obtained by the sub-mucous resection of the nasal septum (SMR) or septoplasty. 13. Treatment is required only if the patient has persistent or recurrent symptoms due to the deviated septum. Permanent relief is obtained by the sub-mucous resection of the nasal septum (SMR) or septoplasty. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Recruiting Medical Officer is under an obligation to strictly adhere to the instructions/guidelines/ policy decision i.e. Manual of Medical Examination. A perusal of Manual of Medical Examination, referred to above, clearly says that the report of the Specialist to whom the matter was referred by the Recruiting Medical Officer, was binding upon him. It is a well settled principle that the opinion of the Specialist/Expert body cannot be ignored and no one can be allowed to sit over and above the opinion of the Specialist/Expert Body. Admittedly, the doctor who had examined and operated the petitioner is an ENT Specialist and Professor & Head of ENT Service/Unit, Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University and his opinion/fitness certificate, cannot be ignored and in case of any doubt the RMO was required to refer the petitioner to the ENT Specialist of the Air Force. It is not the case of the respondents that the Recruiting Medical Officer was also the ENT Specialist and as such he was equally competent to give its own opinion. 14. A principle which has been enunciated by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 is to the effect that if a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that the other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Therefore, the Recruiting Medical Officer was under an obligation to follow the procedure as prescribed in the Manual. Again the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 1843 , has held in para 18 as under : “18. Therefore, to arrive at a decision on “reasonableness” the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. Again the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 1843 , has held in para 18 as under : “18. Therefore, to arrive at a decision on “reasonableness” the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the Four Corners of the law, and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at, having regard to the above principles, and must have been a bona fide one. The decision could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its view.” 15. While passing the impugned order dated 19.11.1992 on the representation of the petitioner, the Civilian Staff Officer, Assistant Director of Personnel (A) for Chief of the Air Staff committed an error in not considering the aforesaid vital facts and left out the relevant factors rendering the impugned order illegal and unjustified. 16. It can further safely be said that the Director of Medical Services (Air) has not decided the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the direction passed in Special Appeal No. 181 of 1991 dated 4th February, 1992, which would be evident from the fact that in the impugned order it is mentioned that petitioner was informed of the factual position vide C.A.S.B. letter No. C.A.S.B./1313/1/Test, dated 16th July, 1990 and a suitable reply was also sent to the petitioner vide C.A.S.B. letter No. C.A.S.B./1000/1/11/Med, dated 16th January, 1992 in response to the representation dated 25th December, 1991 and in view of this, no further action can be taken on the representation dated 27th August, 1992. Accordingly, I am of the view that respondent authorities have not complied with the direction of this Court, passed in Special Appeal No. 181 of 1991, dated 4th February, 1992 in its letter and spirit. It was the pious duty of the Director, Medical Services (Air) to have considered the matter afresh applying its own independent mind and ought to have passed detailed order assigning the reasons. But he violated the Court’s order. Thus, the concerned authorities have failed to discharge their duty with sincerity and shown the callous attitude, which has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner. 17. But he violated the Court’s order. Thus, the concerned authorities have failed to discharge their duty with sincerity and shown the callous attitude, which has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.11.1992 is liable to be quashed, which is hereby quashed. 18. Before parting, it would be necessary to mention that the selection for the post of Airmen (Technical) was held in the year. The petitioner filed first writ petition in the year 1990. Thereafter, he filed the Special Appeal in the year 1992 and the instant writ petition in the year, 1993. His writ petition has come up for final hearing in the year, 2009.The petitioner had to fight long legal battle for almost two decades to get justice. The petitioner was young lad of 18 years when he had filed the first writ petition and by now he must be around 37 years and would definitely have crossed the upper age limit, prescribed for the post. Therefore, this Court cannot direct to re-consider his case. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the mental agony which the petitioner has suffered on account of unjustified, unwarranted action of the respondents, I am of the view that in the interest of justice it would be suffice, if I award the damages to the petitioner. Therefore, I award the damages to the petitioner in the token of money and, which is assessed as Rs. 1.00 lakh. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that respondents themselves have admitted that the disease was of curable and temporary in nature. Had the prompt action been taken by the authorities, the mental agony and trauma suffered by the petitioner would have been avoided. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay the damages/compensation amounting to Rs. 1.00 lakh plus cost of litigation, which is also assessed as Rs. 25,000/- (in total Rs. One Lakh twenty five thousand) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, failing which law will take its own course. ———