JUDGMENT : SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P.(TR).No.6111 of 2017. 2. The present case relates to a person, who is suffering from Vascular Dementia (Psychiatrist disorder) and whose request for retiring him on medical grounds has been rejected. 3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondent in the writ appeal was appointed as Watchman in the Social Welfare Department on 18.12.1991 and his services were regularised and he has successfully completed his probation period. While he was in service, he submitted an application on 24.02.2015 to the Joint Director of Social Welfare, Karimnagar, stating that he want to proceed on medical leave on account of ill-health and also intend to go on retirement on medical invalidation. He also made a request to the Government to retire him on medical grounds keeping in view the policy of the State Government. His representation was forwarded by letter dated 29.07.2015 to the District Coordinator Hospital, District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar, for necessary examination of the petitioner. The District Coordinator of Hospital Services vide letter dated 24.11.2015 addressed to the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, referred the matter to Gandhi Hospital as the Psychiatrist was not available under DCHS, Karimnagar. Consequently, the Regional Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, conducted a medical examination on 30.11.2015 and issued necessary invalidation certificate on 28.12.2015 holding categorically that as per the Psychiatrist and Neurologist opinion Sri P. Devaiah (respondent in the present writ appeal), Watchman, is suffering from Vascular Dementia and can be considered for invalidation under medical grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.661, 16 para (g) (5). The matter was placed before the District Level Committee for scrutiny and the District Level Medical Board, after physical examination, arrived at an opinion that the employee is fit to discharge his duties. 4. In those circumstances, a writ petition was preferred being aggrieved by the rejection order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the District Collector and Chairman of District Level Committee, Karimnagar, and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Paras 8 to 10 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under: “8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was referred to the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital by the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, as Psychiatrist was not available under DCHS, Karimnagar. Paras 8 to 10 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under: “8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was referred to the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital by the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, as Psychiatrist was not available under DCHS, Karimnagar. On such reference, the Regional Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, conducted medical examination of the petitioner on 30.11.2015 and opined that the petitioner was suffering from Vascular Dementia. It is surprising to note that when the petitioner was stated to be suffering from Vascular Dementia and recommended for invalidation on medical grounds, the District Level Committee, on physical examination of the petitioner, opined that he is fit to discharge his duties. The District Level Committee, no doubt, has discretion to seek personal presence of the employee seeking retirement on medical invalidation before considering his proposal, it needs to be emphasized that medical invalidation is sought not on the ground of any physical deformity or illness. Clause 16(g) of the G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 23.10.2008 is extracted below: “(g) Accordingly, the disease for which medical invalidation shall be allowed may be any of the following: 1. Paralysis (i) All 4 limbs (ii) One side upper limb and lower limb (iii) Both lower limbs 2. End stage of Renal diseases 3. End stage of Liver diseases 4. Cancer with metastasis stage or secondaries 5. Dementia – Mental Disorder 6. Severe Parkinson disease 7. Loss of limbs (hands or legs) in case of drivers.” 9. On a reading of the above clause, it needs no emphasis that only in cases covered under clause (g) (1) and (7), physical examination of the employee would be of some relevance. In respect of medical invalidation on physical grounds, the Committee would have discretion to conduct physical examination of the individual. However, the cases falling under clause (g) (2) to (6) are the diseases, which cannot be detected on physical examination of the employee. Naturally, for deciding whether an employee is medically unfit or not under clause (g) (2) to (6), it is necessary to take services of a medical expert. Accordingly, the respondent authority have requisitioned the services of the Gandhi Hospital and the Regional Medical Board of the Gandhi Hospital opined that the petitioner is suffering from Vascular Dementia, which is a mental disorder and which cannot be detected on physical examination of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent authority have requisitioned the services of the Gandhi Hospital and the Regional Medical Board of the Gandhi Hospital opined that the petitioner is suffering from Vascular Dementia, which is a mental disorder and which cannot be detected on physical examination of the petitioner. Assuming that the District Level Committee comprises of medical expert, as one of the members is the District Medical and Health Officer, still the impugned rejection order does not point out as to how the District Level Committee intended to differ with the opinion of the Regional Medical Board of the Gandhi Hospital. There are not reasons assigned in the impugned rejection order as to how they differed with the opinion of the apex board, which is the expert body. 10. In view of the above observations, this Court finds that the said exercise undertaken by the District Level Committee under the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and vitiated by non-application of mind. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 15.06.2016 issued by respondent No.1. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for retirement on medical invalidation grounds by duly taking note of the invalidation certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad dated 28.12.2005. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. The learned Single Judge based upon the expert report of the Regional Medical Board dated 28.12.2015 has arrived at a conclusion that once there was an expert opinion of Psychiatrist and Neurologist that Sri P.Devaiah was suffering from Vascular Dementia and it was a fit case for invalidation under medical grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.661, the District Level Medical Board merely on physical examination by seeing the face of the employee could not have held that the employee cannot be medically boarded out. 6. This Court also fails to understand that once an expert report is on record, how on physical examination by just looking at the employee, the Board can arrive at a conclusion that the employee was fit to discharge his services. 6. This Court also fails to understand that once an expert report is on record, how on physical examination by just looking at the employee, the Board can arrive at a conclusion that the employee was fit to discharge his services. The action taken by the District Level Committee in rejecting the case of the employee by order dated 15.06.2016 is certainly arbitrary and unjust. It also smacks for non application of mind on the part of the present appellants before this Court. 7. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.