JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following prayers :- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (i-a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondent Commission to get the petitioner medically re-examined by a qualified/authorized Ortho Surgeon and further to accordingly act upon in the matter. (i-b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the selection and subsequent appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.” 2. Petitioner appeared in the examination, i.e. Provincial Civil Services Examination. He secured 415.6644 marks in common subjects and 467 marks in optional subjects. He also secured 141 marks in the interview. Thus, he secured 1049.4606 marks. The cut off marks fixed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”), which conducted the selection for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was 1043.9463 for the general candidates. The petitioner was not selected for reason, which according to the petitioner, was not known to the petitioner. This was the original case of the petitioner. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended. It appears that the petitioner was not selected on the basis of the opinion of the Orthopaedic Surgeon, who was a member of the Medical Board constituted by the Commission. The opinion of the expert in this regard was that the petitioner was having the condition known as “Knock Knee”. There is no dispute that a person with “Knock Knee” is ineligible to be considered for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, various grounds have been taken by the petitioner in an attempt to get over the Medical Board’s view. The attempt of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is entitled for re-evaluation by a Medical Board. This is premised on two medical certificates obtained by the petitioner from two Orthopaedic Surgeons. They have opined that the petitioner does not have the condition known as “Knock Knee”. Besides, the petitioner would also lay store by the fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for being selected under the Central Police Service Assistant Commandant examination. This is premised on two medical certificates obtained by the petitioner from two Orthopaedic Surgeons. They have opined that the petitioner does not have the condition known as “Knock Knee”. Besides, the petitioner would also lay store by the fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for being selected under the Central Police Service Assistant Commandant examination. It is his case that therein rigorous physical standards are prescribed and the fact that he had qualified such standards would show that he is not having any deformity relating to the bones as he would have been declared unfit by the Medical Board for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Police Forces is his case. Finally, it is a case of the petitioner that even the certificate of the Medical Board is signed only by one of the two experts. 3. Petitioner impleaded the 4th respondent, who has been selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police and his selection challenged on the ground that the 4th respondent secured lesser marks than the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the Commission would submit that there is no provision for review Medical Board and there are no circumstances for ordering review Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner. There is no such precedent in the selection made by the Commission. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would also submit that the contentions of the petitioner are ill-founded. As regards the certificate not being signed by two persons, it is pointed out that the petitioner has no case that it was the procedure which was adopted only in the case of the petitioner and not in respect of all persons. He also points out that the certificate would reveal that it is a practice followed even in the case of the general Surgeon and where also there were two persons and only one person has signed and it was quite possible that the petitioner may have been referred to one out of the two and the person who had actually examined would have signed. He would further contend that the petitioner has not challenged the Medical Board’s certificate as can be seen from the perusal of the prayers. He would further contend that the petitioner has not challenged the Medical Board’s certificate as can be seen from the perusal of the prayers. He would also submit that actually petitioner has joined the Education Department without raising any protest and accepting the appointment without any demur and he, therefore, cannot turn around and challenge the selection of the 4th respondent. 6. Shri K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may not accord such insurmountable primacy to the view of the experts. In this regard, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In (2013) 8 SCC 83 (Veer Pal Singh versus Secretary Ministry of Defence), a Bench of three judges of the Apex Court was dealing with a case, where the appellant challenged his discharge from military service and rejection of his claim for disability pension. He had also prayed for a fresh Medical Board to assess his disease. The disease was found by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts Pension to be schizophrenic reaction which was not attributable to the military service. In the said case, the Apex Court proceeded to hold, inter alia, as follows :- “10. Although, the courts are extremely loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts, there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis of such opinion. What needs to be imphasised is that the opinion of the experts deserves respect and not worship and the courts and other judicial/quasi-judicial forums entrusted with the task of deciding the disputes relating to premature release/discharge from the army cannot, in each and every case, refuse to examine the record of the Medical Board for determining whether or not the conclusion reached by it is legally sustainable.” And, thereafter, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents therein to refer the case to review Medical Board for reassessing the medical condition of the appellant and find out whether at the time of discharge from service he was suffering from a disease which made him unfit to continue in service. In (2014) (9) SCC 385 (National Thermal Power Corporation, Kahalagaon and others versus Nakul Das and others), the Hon’ble Court was dealing with a case where the issue in substance arose from the recruitment done by the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) which essentially followed a procedure in respect of selection wherein oustees from the lands were being selected. The same was challenged and in the course of the judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to say in regard to the issue which is apposite to our case. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows :- “19. Pursuant to the orders dated 09.05.2013 directing NTPC to appoint the selected candidates, two out of the aforesaid five appellants have been given appointment. However, cases of other three appellants are rejected as in the medical examination conducted, they are found medically unfit as suffering from “colour blindness”. They are appellants 1, 4 and 5. The learned counsel appearing for these appellants submitted that their medical examination was done in haste; they had made representation to NTPC regarding constitution of Medical Board to re-examine their cases to which NTPC was not agreeing; they had got themselves medically examined from the same hospital and same doctor, namely, NTPC, Kahalagaon Hospital and also outside doctor and they had duly certified that these appellants were not suffering from “colour blindness”. Additional affidavit dated 26.06.2005 is filed including the result of their medical examination from out-patient department of NTPC, Kahalagaon Hospital, as well as opinion of some private doctors in support of the aforesaid submission.” 7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not as if the Medical Board certificate is inscrutable in judicial review and the correct approach is as declared in paragraph 10 of the judgment reported in (2013) 8 SCC 83 (Veer Pal Singh versus Secretary Ministry of Defence). In the facts of this case, he would submit that the petitioner has made out a case for constitution of review Medical Board. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent sought to distinguish the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the facts of this case, he would submit that the petitioner has made out a case for constitution of review Medical Board. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent sought to distinguish the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He would also contest the opinion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition of “Knock Knee” is incurable; according to him, it is curable and this is his submission to apparently to the contention based on two subsequent medical certificate obtained by the petitioner. 8. We have already noticed the prayers in the writ petition. Specifically, there is no challenge to the Medical Board’s opinion regarding the fact that the petitioner has the condition of “Knock Knee”. The petitioner does not have a case that the person who made the remarks is not an expert in the concerned field. There is absolutely no case based on any malafides. Therefore, we may take it to be the factual position that the petitioner does not dispute the expertise of the person who has found him to be afflicted with “Knock Knee”. The petitioner does not attribute malafide to him. In such circumstances, the ordinary principle is that the Court would defer to the opinion of the experts. The selection is made by the Commission, which is a constitutional body and if, at all, the Court must lean in favour of upholding the selection process. At once, we must point out that these observations must not be understood as meaning that the Commission placed as it is on the high constitutional pedestal as the selecting body is not immune from judicial review, as howsoever high an authority may be, it is never beyond the pale of judicial review for reason that the system of law we have is one, wedded to the rule of law and also based on the principle that no state action, which is arbitrary, can be allowed to pass muster in a Court of law. Therefore, even the actions of Commission, even in the field of selection, are not impervious to scrutiny on the score that it is either illegal or it is arbitrary. 9. Having said so, we may now proceed to examine whether in the facts of this case the petitioner made out a case for interference. Therefore, even the actions of Commission, even in the field of selection, are not impervious to scrutiny on the score that it is either illegal or it is arbitrary. 9. Having said so, we may now proceed to examine whether in the facts of this case the petitioner made out a case for interference. In this regard, we must first of all inform ourselves of the implications of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri KP Uppadhyay. 10. As far as the judgment reported in (2013) 8 SCC 83 is concerned, it is relevant to notice the facts. The appellant therein was enrolled in the Army. After about two years, he was admitted in Military Hospital for the treatment of “intestinal colic”. He was treated in various hospitals. He was downgraded to medical category “CEE” (Temporary). Thereafter, he was considered in 1977 by the Invaliding Medical Board and on its recommendations, he was discharged. The Apex Court, in the course of its judgment, after referring to the facts, has held as follows:- “11. A recapitulation of the facts shows that at the time of enrolment in the army, the appellant was subjected to medical examination and the Recruiting Medical Officer found that he was fit in all respects. Item 25 of the certificate issued by the Recruiting Medical Officer is quite significant. Therein it is mentioned that speech of the appellant is normal and there is no evidence of mental backwardness or emotional instability. It is, thus, evident that the doctor who examined the appellant on 22.05.1972 did not find any disease or abnormality in the behaviour of the appellant. When the Psychiatrist Dr. (Mrs) Lalitha Rao examined the appellant, she noted that he was quarrelsome, irritable and impulsive but he had improved with the treatment. The Invaliding Medical Board simply endorsed the observation made by Dr Rao that it was a case of “schizophrenic reaction”. Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to advert to medical literature regarding schizophrenia in great detail and finally made the following observations:- “17. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not even bother to look into the contents of the certificate issued by the Invaliding Medical Board and mechanically observed that it cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the Medical Board. Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to advert to medical literature regarding schizophrenia in great detail and finally made the following observations:- “17. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not even bother to look into the contents of the certificate issued by the Invaliding Medical Board and mechanically observed that it cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the Medical Board. If the learned members of the Tribunal had taken pains to study the standard medical dictionaries and medical literature like The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry by F.C. Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman, and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, then they would have definitely found that the observation made by Dr. Lalitha Rao was substantially incompatible with the existing literature on the subject and the conclusion recorded by the Invaliding Medical Board that it was a case of schizophrenic reaction was not well founded and required a review in the context of the observation made by Dr Lalitha Rao herself that with the treatment of the appellant had improved. In our considered view, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the Tribunal should have ordered constitution of Review Medical Board for re-examination of the appellant.” 11. Therefore, the Court found it to be a peculiar case. The Apex Court also, as we have already noted, found that the High Court had failed to scan the medical literature and merely abided by the report of the expert, as if it were binding on it irrespective of the contents of the report. In this case, the appellant has not been able to rely on any medical literature to point out that the condition ascribed to him is palpably unsustainable. No doubt, the petitioner has a case that the description of the petitioner as such suffering from “Knock Knee” is very cryptic and it does not contain any expansion. In this regard, he made available some material from the internet. From the material made available, which appears to be authored by Dr. Pabitra Kumar Sahoo, Assistant Professor (PMR), we notice certain following observations:- “Gen valgum, commonly called “knock-knee”, is a condition in which the knees are deviated towards midline of the body and touch one another when the legs are straightened. Individuals with severe valgus deformities are typically unable to touch their feet together while simultaneously straightening the legs. Pabitra Kumar Sahoo, Assistant Professor (PMR), we notice certain following observations:- “Gen valgum, commonly called “knock-knee”, is a condition in which the knees are deviated towards midline of the body and touch one another when the legs are straightened. Individuals with severe valgus deformities are typically unable to touch their feet together while simultaneously straightening the legs. The term originates from the Latingenu, “knee”, and valgus which actually means bent outwards, but in this case, it is used to describe the distal portion of the leg which bends outwards and thus the proximal portion of the leg near knee seems to be bent inwards.” Mild genu valgum can be seen in children from ages 2 to 5 where children have genuvalgum angle up to 20 degrees. Genu valgum rarely worsens after age 7 & valgus should not be worse than 12 degrees, intermalleolar distance should be <8 cm. The deformity often get corrected naturally as children grow. However, the condition may continue or worsen with age, particularly when it is the result of a disease, such as rickets ormetabolic origin. Idiopathic genu valgum is the commonest form that is either because of congenital or has no known cause. Distal femur is the most common location of primary pathologic genu valgum but can arise from tibia.” Thereafter, we notice the following observations:- “The degree of genu valgum can be estimated by the Q angle, which is the angle formed by a line drawn from the anterior superior iliac spine through the center of the patella and a line drawn from the center of the patella to the center of the tibial tubercle. In women, the Q angle should be less than 22 degrees with the knee in extension and less than 9 degrees with the knee in 90 degrees of flexion. In men, the Q angle should be less than 18 degrees with the knee in extension and less than 8 degrees with the knee in 90 degrees of flexion. A typical Q angle is 12 degree for men and 17 degrees for women.” 12. The cryptic nature of the description of the condition in the view of the expert of the Commission, cannot be challenged (in fact, it is not challenged by way of a suitable prayer, as we have already noticed) for the reason that this particular medical condition is a disqualification. The cryptic nature of the description of the condition in the view of the expert of the Commission, cannot be challenged (in fact, it is not challenged by way of a suitable prayer, as we have already noticed) for the reason that this particular medical condition is a disqualification. Admittedly, this fact must be treated as being known to the medical experts. They have been constituted as a selecting body to find out whether any particular condition would disqualify. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind the context in which the opinion is offered by the expert. It is also significant to note that the expert has, in fact, opined that the petitioner does not have any bony deformity. If at all, this in our view, shows that there was application of mind and he was only pointing out a condition which the petitioner had, in his view, on his physical examination. There is no case of the petitioner that this particular doctor did not examine him. 13. Therefore, the fact that it does not elaborate the condition in terms of the degree of the illness may not be of any moment. 14. Unlike the facts in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are considering the question of the opinion of the Medical Board, which was entrusted to the task of examining the petitioner for the purpose of selecting him. The Apex Court was dealing with a case where a person, who had already been selected, his medical condition entered and the question was whether the party was suffering from the illness attributed to him and whether it was further attributable to the military service. Therefore, the context is completely different, as we have already noted. No medical literature is made available and it cannot be made available also to demonstrate that the opinion of the doctor is per se unsustainable. 15. As regard the fact that the petitioner underwent another selection process, we would think that we cannot from that alone know, whether, in fact, “Knock Knee” was a disqualification, as such, in the said selection. 15. As regard the fact that the petitioner underwent another selection process, we would think that we cannot from that alone know, whether, in fact, “Knock Knee” was a disqualification, as such, in the said selection. At any rate, when the opinion of the expert is before us, who is appointed by the Commission, we do not think it would be appropriate to brush aside the same with reference to the fact that he undergone selection alone in regard to another service, even if it be relating to a paramilitary force. 16. Then there remains two medical certificates obtained by the petitioner. We have noted that “Knock Knee” can be of various degrees. It may not be safe to not defer to the opinion of the expert, who has examined him and who was appointed by the Commission and instead rely on medical certificate issued by the two other doctors. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the judgment reported in (2014) 9 SCC 385 where, in fact, the party therein had approached the very same doctor, and it was in the said context also apparently that the Apex Court had directed in the facts of the case to constitute a Medical Board. In this case, it is not as if the petitioner approached the very same doctor, who was appointed by the Commission and obtained a contrary report in which case, it may have brought the earlier report under the shadow of doubt. 17. We are not saying for a moment that when the Commission conducts the selection, in no circumstances, the Court will interfere with the selection. There could be situations where there is an allegation of malafide, which is established which may warrant interference. There may be a case where it is expressly shown that the alleged expert is no expert at all. We do not wish to be exhaustive. We only wish to hold that we do not agree with the learned counsel for the Commission Shri B.D. Kandpal that the Court can not order review in any circumstances at all. But in this case, we would think that it may not fall in the exceptional circumstances where we would be justified in interfering with either the findings of the Medical Board or with the selection of the 4th respondent. Being meritless, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.