JUDGMENT : 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of report of Medical Board dated 06.09.2024, whereby petitioner has been declared as medically unfit on account of having Hypopigment Patch and has also prayed that directions may be given to respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to join as 'Agniveer' under the ‘Agnipath Scheme’ for the recruitment year 2024-25. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-Union of India through Recruiting Office (Headquarters) issued an advertisement for inviting application from eligible persons in ‘Agnipath Scheme’ for recruiting as “Agniveer” in recruitment year 2024-25. The petitioner, since fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, submitted his application form and as per the petitioner, he qualified the written examination and was declared as eligible for Phase-II of the recruitment process, which was Recruitment Rally and Physical Test. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also qualified the Physical Test conducted on 05.09.2024 and thereafter, he was directed to report for medical examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was found fully medically fit, however, in quite arbitrary manner, Medical Board has declared him unfit on account of alleged disability of Hypopigment Patch in his Left Arm and Left Upper Back. 5. It was further submitted that feeling aggrieved the petitioner approached the Review Medical Board, where again he was examined by Review Medical Board on 11.09.2024 at the Military Hospital, Jaipur, however, Review Medical Board has also confirmed the aforesaid disability and no relief was granted to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also consulted to S.M.S. Medical Hospital, Jaipur, which is a prime Government Hospital in the State of Rajasthan, where the skin Specialist have opined that the aforesaid disability-Hypopigment Patch was a birthmark, and therefore, as per the petitioner, it cannot be treated as disability. Learned counsel further submits that such birthmark shall not affect his efficiency and physical capacity to work as ‘Agniveer’, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared as medically unfit on account of such birthmark. Hence, he should be treated as medically fit and the respondents cannot deny him appointment solely on the basis of aforesaid disability. 7. Learned counsel further submits that such birthmark shall not affect his efficiency and physical capacity to work as ‘Agniveer’, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared as medically unfit on account of such birthmark. Hence, he should be treated as medically fit and the respondents cannot deny him appointment solely on the basis of aforesaid disability. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the decision taken by the Medical Board to declare the petitioner as medically unfit, has also raised objection that although, Review Medical Board has also confirmed that the petitioner was having aforesaid disability, yet the petitioner has not challenged the report given by the Review Medical Board. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards the requirement of medical examination contained in the advertisement, which are reproduced as under:- " (d) Medical Examination. (i) Medical examination of candidates who qualify in Physical Fitness Test, Physical Measurement Test and Adaptability Test will be conducted by Army Medical Team at the Rally site as per Army Medical standards and policy in vogue on the subject issue. (ii) Unfit candidates will be referred to MH for specialist review. Candidates to report to designated Military Hospital within 5 days from referral and review medical exam to be completed by Military Hospital within 07 days as per policy. (iii) The recruitment medical officer and the specialist doctors of Armed Forces are the final authorities on declaring a candidate fit or unfit during initial med examination, review medical examination and med examination prior to enrolment. The candidates shall be governed by Army standards which may be at variance from civil standards. There is no provision for representation or appeal or re-review after the review medical examination. (iv) Passing in the medical examination is not a guarantee for employment in Indian Army." 9. That apart, it has also been brought to the notice of the Court that in guidelines relating to Medical Standards and procedure of medical examination, placed on record as Annexure-7 with the writ petition, prescribe Medical Standards are as under:- "Medical Standards. 3. Medical standards described in the following paragraphs are general guidelines. They are not exhaustive in view of the vast knowledge of disease. 3. Medical standards described in the following paragraphs are general guidelines. They are not exhaustive in view of the vast knowledge of disease. These standards are subject to change with advancement in the scientific knowledge and change in working conditions of Armed Forces due to introduction of new eqpt/trades. Such changes will be promulgated from time to time by policy letters by competent authorities. Medical Officers, Spl Medical Officers and Medical Boards will take appropriate decisions based on following guidelines and principles. 4. To be deemed 'Medically fit', a candidate must be in good physical and mental health and free from any disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere with the efficient performance of military duties in any terrain, climate, season incl sea and air, in remote areas, in austere conditions with no medical aid. Candidate also should be free of medical conditions which require frequent visit to medical facilities and use of any aid/drugs. (a) It will, however, be ensured that candidate is in good health. There should be no evidence of weak constitution, imperfect development of any system, any congenital deformities/diseases/syndrome or malformation. (b) No swelling/s including tumours/cyst/swollen lymph node/s anywhere on the body. No sinus/es or fistula/e anywhere on the body. (c) No hyper or hypo pigmentation or any other disease/syndrome/disability of the skin. (d) No hernia anywhere on the body. (e) No scars which can impair the functioning and cause significant disfigurement. (l).................... 10. Clause 6 of aforesaid guidelines relating to Medical Standards also provides certain directives indicating usual medical conditions which may lead to rejection of the candidature of any aspirant on account of being medically unfit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also emphasized that so far as medical unfitness relating to skin is concerned, sub-clause (j) of Clause (6) of the above guidelines from medical standards is relevant, which is reproduced as under:- "(j) Skin: Vitiligo, haemangiomas, warts, corns, dermatitis, skin infections growths and hyperhydrosis." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgement of this Court in SBCWP No. 17749/2024: Ramkala Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors ., decided on 03.03.2025 as well as on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Ranga Mahammad and Ors . reported in 1967 AIR 903. 12. Union of India and Ors ., decided on 03.03.2025 as well as on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Ranga Mahammad and Ors . reported in 1967 AIR 903. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 11669/2016: Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secretary Ministry of Home and Ors. , DBSAW No.1259/2017: Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secondary, Ministry of Home Affairs, BSF, Government of India and Ors. , decided on 09.11.2017, Jitendra Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rasthan and Ors. reported in DB. CSA(W) No.1/2002, decided on 03.07.2002, Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reprorted in SLP (C) No. 26223/2008 Decided on 19.05.2010, SBCWP No. 18240/2024 Aman Kumar Vs. Union of India, Through The Secretary and Ors. Decided On 03.12.2024, SBCWP No. 1664/2000, Karamveer Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary and Ors. decided On 05.07.2023, Satender Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in WP(C) 3445/2024 decided on 11.03.2024. 13. I have heard the arguments made at bar by both the counsel for the parties as well as carefully examined the material on record. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing his submissions, has submitted that the disability alleged against the petitioner is not of such a nature which may cause any hindrance in discharging duties of ‘Agniveer’ and the disputed Patch is merely confined to a birthmark. It is also non-communicable and even as per report given by S.M.S. Medical College, such mark Hypopigmant Patch cannot be considered to be a disability, more particularly, in view of sub-clause (j) of Clause (6) of the guidelines for medical standards, where only the diseases mentioned in above Sub Clause (j) can be termed as medical unfitness, no other diseases or marks on the skin can be a reason for dis-entitling the petitioner from seeking appointment on the post of ‘Agniveer’. 15. The aforesaid contention on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived for the reason that the medical standards guidelines issued by the respondents cannot be read in piecemeal and it has to be seen in entirety. Clause 6 of the guidelines merely provides for broad and usual medical conditions which may lead to rejection of candidature. 15. The aforesaid contention on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived for the reason that the medical standards guidelines issued by the respondents cannot be read in piecemeal and it has to be seen in entirety. Clause 6 of the guidelines merely provides for broad and usual medical conditions which may lead to rejection of candidature. The terminology used in Clause 6 in itself would make it clear that the medical conditions prescribed in Clause 6 are merely inclusive in nature and it cannot be said that no other medical condition/disease etc. can be taken into consideration by the respondents for rejection. 16. Clause 3 and 4 of the aforesaid guidelines regarding Medical Standards defines “Medically Fit” in the manner that a candidate must be in good physical and mental health and free from any disease/Syndrome/disability likely to interfere with the efficient performance of military duties in any terrain, climate, season etc.with no medical aid. 17. The aforesaid Clause 4 also provides certain conditions which may also be a good and sufficient reason for not treating a candidate as medically fit. Sub-clause (C) of aforesaid Clause (4), in no unequivocal term mandates that there should be no hyper or hypo pigmentation or any other disease/syndrome/disability of the skin. 18. Thus, while examining the aforesaid medical standards prescribed by the respondents, this Court cannot ignore aforesaid Sub-clause (C) of Clause (4). 19. Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of ‘Agniveer’ under Army. The standards of medical conditions and medical fitness, as required by the Army, are much higher and stricture than the standards applied in any other services. Such medical standards have been set and formulated by the experts on the basis of long experience in the field. 20. Even otherwise in the instant writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the guidelines for medical standards framed by the respondents. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vociferously argued that hypo pigmention patch is nothing but a Nevus anemicus, which is an uncommon congenital vascular malformation that resulted in hypo pigmented cutaneous macules and patches; and does not require any further treatment, being not a disease and disability and is also non-communicable. 22. This Court, not being a medical expert, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into analysis of a particular physical and medical standard. 22. This Court, not being a medical expert, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into analysis of a particular physical and medical standard. Policy framing including laying down medical standard is sole function of the experts of respondent-Government, who are, as per their wisdom, supposed to set out parameters required even for medical fitness. 23. In the aforesaid judgement of Ramkala Verma (Supra) this Court was dealing with a recruitment process of CAPFs where standards of medical fitness are altogether different than the standards set out in Army. Hence, in the aforesaid case, this Court was dealing with altogether different skin problem. Even otherwise, it reveals from Para 17.7 of the judgment that the Court was mindful of the fact that the candidate was previously declared medically fit during an earlier selection process carried out by BSF after considering her birthmark. Therefore, observations given by this Court in the case of Ramkala Verma were in altogether distinct context and set of facts, hence, the aforesaid judgement is not applicable in the instant case. 24. Another judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of State of Assam (supra) has got no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the instant case. In the above judgment the term transfer of posting/appointment and promotion were sought to be defined in a particular manner. Hence, the aforesaid judgement is not also helpful to the petitioner. 25. In the case of Satendra Kumar Yadav (Supra), the Delhi High Court was dealing with the Short Service Commission in the Indian Army where the candidate was declared unfit for ‘Hyperpigmented Lesion’ on the chest, and in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has observed as under:- "13. There is no qualm about the fact that the terms and conditions contained in the Manual being the gospel when it comes to recruitment of any candidate by the respondents like the petitioner herein, are the guiding principles for the respondents to follow and abide. Similarly, recruitment of all candidates like the petitioner is also bound by the said Manual. 14. The facts involved reveal that both the SMB and the AMB being constituted by the respondents comprising of specialized experts in their fields have rendered their valuable opinion independently on two respective occasions and declared the petitioner medically 'Unfit'. Similarly, recruitment of all candidates like the petitioner is also bound by the said Manual. 14. The facts involved reveal that both the SMB and the AMB being constituted by the respondents comprising of specialized experts in their fields have rendered their valuable opinion independently on two respective occasions and declared the petitioner medically 'Unfit'. In view thereof, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the said decisions/ opinions rendered by both the medically competent boards. 15. Further, since this Court finds that neither of them is vitiated by any element of biasness, arbitrariness or mala fide, there is no occasion and/ or reason for doubting either of them. In fact, as per the settled position of law, this Court, actually Courts, ought to be circumspect, wary and watchful in dwelling into such matters of correctness or the analysis or the appraisal thereof, especially when it is qua recruitment into the Armed Forces, as also when they are involving opinion(s) rendered by specialized experts in their fields. 16. The aforesaid Manual also has been prepared by the specialized experts in their fields of the respondents, who, in their esteemed wisdom have chosen to device the criteria for determination of any candidate for the recruitment, as also the conditions for reference of such candidature to the RMB. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the aforesaid in Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan (2000) 6 SCC 698 has held as under: "29. ..... Critical analysis or appraisal of the file by the Court may neither be conducive to the interests of the officers concerned or for the morale of the entire force. Maybe one may emphasize one aspect rather than the other but in the appraisal of the total profile, the entire service profile has been taken care of by the authorities concerned and we cannot substitute our view to that of the authorities. It is a well-known principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In that view of the matter, we think there is no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the order made by the Government." 26. Thus, it can safely be held that when selection is made upon advise of experts having high academic qualifications and technical experience in the specialised field, the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of malafide. 27. In view of the above, where medical standard set out in the guidelines have not been challenged by the petitioner, which has been framed by the specialist experts in their respective field, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any mistake in holding the petitioner as medically unfit. The opinion procured by the petitioner from S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur is also of no relevance or significance as parameters for the recruitment in Armed Forces are completely different from those of other services. This Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot act as Appellate Court over the decision of Medical Board, therefore, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition. 28. Hence, in the light of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 29. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.