JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who holds the qualification for being considered for the post of Soldier General Duty (Sol GD) in Indian Army, has filed this application challenging the recommendation for cancellation of his candidature made by the Director Recruiting, Army Recruitment Office, Cuttack-opposite party No. 4 to the Chief of Army Staff, Headquarters Recruitment Zone, Army Headquarters, Kolkata, vide letter No. D/301/19 dated 27.04.2011 in Annexure-I, and consequential cancellation made by opposite party No. 2, vide letter No. D/4042/SA dated 01.07.2011 In Annexure-2, addressed to the Army Recruitment Office Cuttack (Orissa) on the basis of the medical certificate given by the INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam declaring him unfit. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Director of Recruiting, Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack-opposite party No. 4 published a recruitment notice in the Oriya weekly newspaper "Nijukti Khabar" dated 30.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates in the Army Recruitment Rally for appointment to the post of Soldier General Duty (Sol GD) for which medical examination and documentation was to be held on 15.12.2010 at Balasore (Orissa) and common entrance examination of medical fit candidates was to be held on 30.01.2011 at Barabati Stadium, Cuttack. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner offered his candidature for medical test and submitted necessary documents in the Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack on the scheduled date and after completing such medical examination, he was issued with an admit card bearing Roll No. KOL/CUT/GD/300111/1004 to sit 111 the common entrance examination, which was to be held on 30.01.2011 at Barabati Stadium, Cuttack. After successfully completing the common entrance examination held on 30.01.2011, a call letter of dispatch dated February, 2011 was issued to the petitioner showing him as a selected candidate for Soldier General Duty (Sol GD), Cat, GEE held on 30.01.2011 at Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack asking him to produce specified documents stated at paragraph-2 of the call letter at the time of dispatch and further advised to report to Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack on 22.02.2011 for document check and for final dispatch drill. In compliance of the same, the petitioner submitted all the required documents, including original certificates and mark sheets of educational qualification, before the Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack on the scheduled date and appeared on 23.02.2011 in the final dispatch drill at the Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack. 2.1. In compliance of the same, the petitioner submitted all the required documents, including original certificates and mark sheets of educational qualification, before the Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack on the scheduled date and appeared on 23.02.2011 in the final dispatch drill at the Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack. 2.1. The petitioner, after successfully completing all the test, was lastly put to eye screening test on 14.03.2011, wherein the Medical Officer, Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack found readings "Refractive error 6/9 R+" and referred the case of the petitioner to INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam for further eye test to be held on 23.03.2011. As per the direction of Army Recruiting Office, Cuttack, the petitioner on 23.03.2011 reported before the Medical Officer, INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam, who gave a reading as "6/18 for left and 6/24 for right eye" and issued Medical Review Certificate No. Rec, 191 dated 23.03.2011 declaring the petitioner 'unfit'. But the authority did not communicate anything to the petitioner regarding status of his candidature. In the mean time, the petitioner himself undergone a test at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, which gave a reading "6/6 and 6/6 fur both eyes" and accordingly he requested the opposite parties not to go with the Medical Review Certificate issued by the INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam. But the effort made by the petitioner went in vain. 2.2. When appointment letters were issued to similarly situated persons and allowed them to join in training, the petitioner finding no other way out, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17745 of 2011 seeking direction to the opposite parties for issuance of appointment order for the post of Soldier General Duty (Sol GD). When the matter was pending before this Court, the petitioner came to know that recommendation for cancellation of his candidature was made by the Director, Army Recruiting Office Cuttack-opposite party No. 4 to the Chief of Army Staff, Headquarters Recruitment Zone, Army Head Quarters, Kolkata-opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 27.04.2011 on the ground of Medical Review Certificate given by the INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam declaring him 'unfit', and opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 01.07.2011, accepted such recommendation and consequentially passed the order of cancellation. Therefore, on 19.12.2011 the petitioner withdrew the writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 17745 of 2011 with a liberty to file better application, as in the meantime there was change of circumstances, which was allowed by this Court. Therefore, on 19.12.2011 the petitioner withdrew the writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 17745 of 2011 with a liberty to file better application, as in the meantime there was change of circumstances, which was allowed by this Court. With the change of circumstances, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No. 355 of 2012-challenging such cancellation of candidature of petitioner, as well as recruitment procedure followed by the opposite parties pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-4. When the matter was heard, this Court, vide order dated 03.04.2012, held that since the relief sought in the writ application was coming under the scope and ambit of Armed Force Tribunal, it should be transferred to the said Tribunal. Accordingly, in view of order dated 03.04.2012, W.P.(C) No. 355 of 2012 was transferred to Armed Force Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and registered as T.A. No. 40 of 2012. The Armed Force Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact and provisions of Sections 2 and 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007, held by order dated 13/14.06.2012 that the matter would not be maintainable before it for adjudication and accordingly disposed of the same. In view of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, the petitioner has filed the present application. 3. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that after qualifying all the stages, when Review Medical Certificate dated 14.03.2011 was granted in Annexure-6 pointing out in Clause-I(a) "refractive error 6/9 Rt", the petitioner was advised to report to INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam on 23.03.2011, but the INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam vide Annexure-8 dated 23.03.2011 gave a report indicating "DV 6/24 and 6/18" and declared him "unfit", 'which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the advertisement. It is further contended that when the petitioner was advised to report Army Recruitment Officer, Cuttack on 22.02.2011 for documents check and for final dispatch drill, pursuant to letter in Annexure-5 series, by that time every process of selection had already been concluded, save and except verification of documents, so that the candidates can report in their place of posting, at which juncture review medical checkup is not warranted and, as such, such review medical checkup is contrary to Clause-198 of the Policy Compendium for Recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks 2009 and, therefore, the report of INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam under Annexure-8 dated 23.03.2011 declaring the petitioner "unfit", is not legally acceptable. Consequentially, the recommendation for cancellation of candidature of the petitioner made by opposite party No. 4 to opposite party No. 2 in Annexure-I and subsequent order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner by opposite party No. 2 in Annexure-2, being violative of Indian Army Recruitment Rules and the principle of natural justice, cannot sustain in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. M.K. Badu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite parties though admitted the fact but contended that since the petitioner was issued with a Review Medical Certificate declaring him "unfit", he cannot claim that he is medically fit so as to enable him to join at his posting place. It is further contended that the petitioner was required to report at Army Recruitment Office, Cuttack for pre-enrolment documentation check on 22.02.2011. After completion of his pre-enrolment documentation check on 22.02.2011, the petitioner was required to report at Army Recruitment Office, Cuttack on 14.03.2011 for final dispatch drill, which is one of the most important pre-enrolment verification and validation procedure for potential enrollees of India Army. After completion of final dispatch drill, all the successful candidates are enrolled in Indian Army and dispatched to Army Training Centres. But in view of Review Medical Certificate issued by INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam finding the petitioner medically "unfit", he could Hut be enrolled. As such, he has tried to justify the order passed by the opposite parties declaring the petitioner "unfit". 5. Having not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, this court directed, vide order dated 24.03.2014, to file an affidavit with regard to procedure adopted for selection of the candidates. In compliance of the same, opposite party No. 3 has filed an affidavit on 21.07.2014 along with Policy Compendium for Recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks, 2009, basing upon which the opposite parties have tried to justify their action declaring the petitioner "unfit". 6. This Court heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Badu, learned Central Government Counsel and perused the records. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged and the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of parties. 7. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. 6. This Court heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Badu, learned Central Government Counsel and perused the records. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged and the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of parties. 7. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. The only question which is to be considered by this Court is that after the selection process was concluded, when the petitioner was advised to report Army Recruitment Officer, Cuttack on 22.02.2011 for documents check and for final dispatch drill, so that the candidates can report at their place of posting, whether at that stage the opposite parties are justified to go for Review Medical Checkup consequent upon which the petitioner was declared "unfit". 8. In the affidavit filed on 21.07.2014, it has been clarified by the opposite parties that the process of medical examination for recruitment in Army for General Duly Category consists of the following steps: (a) Physical Fitness Test (b) Documentation (c) Physical Standard Measurement (d) Primary Medical Examination (e) Combined Entrance Examination (f) Final Despatch Drill prior to Despatch to Training Centre. It is also admitted that the petitioner had undergone physical Test and documentation check during Army Recruitment Rally at Balasore on 16.12.2010, and that he was declared physically fit and the documents submitted by him were found to be in order. Thereby, the medical examination of the petitioner was carried out during Army Recruitment Rally at Balasore on 17.12.2010. During course of medical examination of the petitioner at Balasore, the petitioner had given an undertaking that he IS willing for medical examination as per medical standards required in the Army, As per Para-135 of Regulations for the Army, Revised Edition, 1987, all recruits, prior to enrollment or engagement, are to be subjected to a medical examination in the prescribed manner. Primary medical examination for enrolment in the Army is intended to preclude acceptance of those candidates who are either "unfit" or "likely to break down under the stress and strain of military service". Every candidate must, therefore, be medically fit to carry out full duties of corps, or unit that he is posted. The medical examination of all recruits for enrolment by recruiting offices is carried out by Recruiting Medical Officers (RMO). Every candidate must, therefore, be medically fit to carry out full duties of corps, or unit that he is posted. The medical examination of all recruits for enrolment by recruiting offices is carried out by Recruiting Medical Officers (RMO). As such, the petitioner was examined by the recruiting medical officers during his primary medical examination held on 17.12.2010. The petitioner, having become successful, was called upon to appear a combined entrance examination, 'where he became successful. Thereafter, he was called for verification of documents and final dispatch drill. The sequence of medical examination has been indicated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed on 21.07.2014. 9. Review medical examination has been prescribed in Para - 180 of Policy Compendium for Recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks, 2009 in Annexure-K/3 series, which reads as under: "18G. The Temporary Unfit and Permanent Unfit candidates will report with the review certificate for Appeal Medical Board and the receipted Military Receivable Order (in case of Permanent Unfit candidate) to the affiliated or referred hospital under their own arrangement by 0900 hours on the day/days specified for the medical examination of candidates. The hospital will arrange for the medical examination on the same day as far as possible." When petitioner presented himself along with documents for final dispatch drill, there was no option left open to the opposite parties to reconsider the physical test, which he had already qualified and he had also crossed different stages as mentioned in clause (a) to (f). 10. Para-198 of Policy Compendium for Recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks, 2009, which deals with action during dispatch, reads thus: "198. Under exceptional circumstances, medical examination/physical measurements {only height) of candidates may be done at the time of dispatch when there are apparent signs of diseases like Sexual Transmission disease, broken limbs etc. However, a candidate will be rejected at this stage only with the prior approval of the DDG Rts (Stage). In this connection also refer IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. A/76976/Rtg 5(OR)(A)/dated 29 Jul 7991." On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is seen that under exceptional circumstances, medical examination! physical measurements (only height) of candidates may be done at the time of dispatch when there are apparent sings of diseases like Sexual Transmission Diseases, broken limbs, etc. In this connection also refer IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No. A/76976/Rtg 5(OR)(A)/dated 29 Jul 7991." On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is seen that under exceptional circumstances, medical examination! physical measurements (only height) of candidates may be done at the time of dispatch when there are apparent sings of diseases like Sexual Transmission Diseases, broken limbs, etc. Therefore, when the petitioner presented himself for final dispatch drill, along with documents, after verification of documents, he should have been sent to the training centre. If at all in exceptional circumstances medical examination/physical measures were to be done, that has to be confined only to heights or sexual transmission diseases or broken limbs, etc., but nowhere under such clause there is provision for review medical of the eye. Therefore, by the time final dispatch drill was conducted, since the petitioner had crossed all the stages of test, sending him for review medical checkup and consequentially declaring him "unfit" and thereby depriving him of going to the training centre, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 11. It is of relevance to note that the petitioner had examined himself before the SeB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and it was reported "VA 6/6 both right and left eye". Such medical certificate was granted by the SCB Medical College and Hospital .. Cuttack on 16.01.2011, whereas INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatna on review medical declared him unfit on 23.03.2011 declaring him "DV 6/24 and 6/18", and as such, while recommending the petitioner it has been indicated that refractory error 6/9 (Rt) only. Therefore, the standard of test undertaken by the opposite parties cannot be said to have been done with proper application of mind. That apart, three reports are available on record, which are separate from each other. Therefore, on the basis of such inconsistent reports, the legitimate right of the petitioner, who was to go for training after final dispatch drill, can not be taken away. In view of such position, this Court is of the considered view that the report of INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatna declaring the petitioner "unfit", in view of "DV 6/24 right and 6/18 left", cannot sustain in the eye of law. 12. In view of such position, this Court is of the considered view that the report of INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatna declaring the petitioner "unfit", in view of "DV 6/24 right and 6/18 left", cannot sustain in the eye of law. 12. In the result therefore, the Review Certificate dated 14.03.2011 in Annexure-6 advising petitioner to report at INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatna on 23.03.2011, for refractive error in the eye, and consequential report dated 23.03.2011 in Annexure-8 furnished by the INHS Kalyani, Vishakhapatna declaring the petitioner 'unfit' cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. On the basis of the call letter for dispatch and documents required from candidates dated 30.01.2011, if the authorities are satisfied, they shall send the petitioner to training centre by issuing necessary appointment letter in his favour as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment. 13. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order to costs.