Tarun Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA , J.

¶1The present petition under Articles 26 and 27 of the Constitution of India , 1950, seks the folowing prayers: -

—(i) To issue a writ directing th Apointment Order and thereby alow the petitioner to join the Indian Military Academy (IMA) - 161 course in Army imediately as the petitioner has ben declared qualified in al aspects in the recru itment proces conducted through Combined Defence Services (CDS - I) Examination 2025.

(i) Any other relief(s) as may be found necesary and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed."

¶2On 13 th August, 2026, after hearing submisions made on behalf of the parties, this Court had pased the folowing order: -

3 of

—1.

In the present petition, the prayer is for isuance of direction to the respondent to isue Apointment Order and further direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to join the Indian Military Academy

(IMA) - 161 course, with imediate efect, in view of the fact that the petitioner was declared qualified in al aspects in the recruitment proces conducted through Combined Defence Services (CDS - I) Examinatio n, 2025.

¶2The facts necesary for deciding the present petition are as under:

¶3The petitioner, aspiring NDA, aplied for the NDA 145 Course in the year 2020 on intermediate qualification basis, i.e., 12th qualification.

¶4The petitioner was decla red qualified and medicaly fit and acordingly, he joined the NDA 145 course as an Army cadet on 23rd April, 2021.

¶5During the course of a cros country run, the petitioner, having sustained an injury i.e., stres fracture neck of femur (LT.), was reco mended for withdrawal from the course on medical grounds on 24th December, 202 while he was in the Fourth Semester.

¶6Subsequent thereto, the petitioner underwent apropriate treatment for the aforesaid medical ailment/injury sufered by him.

¶7The p etitioner, thereafter, upon completing graduation, apeared for the Coast Guard Comon Admision Test for the post of Asistant Comandant and qualified the same. Upon being declared medicaly fit by the Army Hospital (Research and Referal), New Delhi, he was isued an apointment order dated 02nd January, 2026.

¶8Since the petitioner aspired to join the Armed Forces, during the selection proces in the Indian Coast Guard - 2026 Course, he also aplied for the CDS - I Examination, 2025 in which he was decl ared qualified.

4 of

¶9However, the petitioner was not isued his joining orders and was not comunicated any reasons for the same, which has led to filing of the present petition.

10.

Post filing of the counter - afidavit by the respondents, it is brought on record that the petitioner has deliberately supresed a material fact from the respondents during the proces of aplication and selection viz. his earlier withdrawal on medical grounds from the services of Army.

1.

As against this, the counsel for the petitioner states that it is an admited position borne out of record that the petitioner was withdrawn from the earlier NDA course in view of his having sufered a stres fracture neck of femur (LT.). The same led to the isuance of a certificate to the petitioner for his withdrawal from the course.

12.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner, having qualified the selection proces for the post of Asistant Comandant with Coast Guard, was subjected to the medical examination at Army Hospital (Research and Re feral), New Delhi, where he was certified to be medicaly fit for selection and apointment for the post of Asistant Comandant, Indian Coast Guard and was scheduled for undergoing the 2026 course.

13.

Since the petitioner was interested in being place d in the Army, he pursued the CDS - I Examination, 2025 and cracked the same.

14.

It is urged by the petitioner that his withdrawal from the Army Course on 24th December, 202, on medical grounds, has got extinguished in view of the medical certification isued by the Army Hospital (Research and Referal), New Delhi, conducted during his asesment for the post of Asistant Comandant, Indian Coast Guard.

5 of

15.

As such, it is urged that the petitioner canot be non - suited only on the basis of the earlier m edical ground, or it canot be infered that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to supres or furnish any incorect information.

16.

As against the above, the counsel for the respondent has strenuously urged that once it is borne out of the record, i.e., the "Report on Accidental an - Inflicted Injuries' anexed at Anexure P - 5 , that the petitioner had sufered a stres fracture neck of femur (LT.) which had led to his recomendation for withdrawal on medical grounds, it was expected from the petitioner to disclose the said information while filing the confidential medical examination report on entry.

17.

Acording to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner, in categorical terms, has stated that the petitioner has be n never discharged as medicaly unfit from any branch of Armed Forces, whereas the fact remains that the petitioner was declared as permanently unfit for any form of future military service as could be infered from the Show Cause Notice dated 15th Decembe r, 202.

18.

It is further urged by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was given the certificate of withdrawal, anexed at Anexure P - 6, to make it clear to him that he has ben declared permanently unfit for any form of future military se rvices.

19.

Apart from the above, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner intended to become the part of the disciplined forces, which are entrusted with the duty of guarding the borders and defending the country. The ma in principles to be adopted by the oficials/candidates who are selected are "integrity' and "honesty'.

20.

In the case in hand, though the petitioner was aware about his history qua his service and his discharge on medical grounds, it was expected of hi m to disclose the true information.

6 of

21.

Whether the petitioner has ben declared medicaly fit from the Army Hospital (Research and Referal), while undergoing the selection proces for the post of Asistant Comandant, Coast Guard, wil hardly be of any consequence in the mater of supresion, which was found to be the basis for not giving the selection/apointment order to the petitioner.

2.

At this stage, when confronted, the counsel for the respondent states that the entire record in relation to th e 202 procedings against the petitioner, whereby he was declared permanently unfit, shal be placed on record by the next date of hearing.

23.

List on 19th August, 2026 on top of the Board in the " Supplementary list' ."

¶3Today, learned counsel for the respondents has handed up in Court today, entire record of the procedings of the year 202 against the petitioner, with respect to invaliding medical board constituted at the time of petitioner's withdra National Defen c e Academy, Khadakwasla

(NDA) . In adition to that, a two - page

document titled as, —D efinition of Oficer Like Qualities " has als ben sought to be placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to place on record writen submisions wherein in adition to his submision s made on the last date of hearing , i.e., th August, 2026, it is further urged that competent medical authority of the respondents themselves (AFCME) has certified petitioner "FIT'

for army services in the present recruitment, which is in q uestion. It is

further submited that the medical fitnes of the petitioner has to be adjudicated as on the time of the relevant entry and medical examination for the recruitment concerned, and therefore, 202

7 of

invalidment does not operate as a perpetual ba r. It is reiterated that the two apex Military establishments (AFCME and Army Hospital, RNR) have given concurent finding s with respect to the medical fitnes of the petitioner. The documents handed up by learned CGSC for the respondents as wel as learne d counsel for the petitioner in Court today are taken on record.

¶4Reliance is placed on notificatio n dated th May, 2025 isued by Union Public Service Comision in respect of Combined Defence Services Examination (I), 2025, especialy on the folowi ng portion wherein, disqualification s have ben explained: -

—9. DISQUALIFICATION FOR ADMISION TO THE TRAINING COURSE:

Candidates who were admited to an earlier course at the National Defence Academy, Indian Military Academy, Air Force Academy, Indian Naval Academy; Oficers' Training Academy, Chenai but were removed there from on disciplinary ground wil not be considered for admision to the Indian Military Academy, Indian Naval Academy, Air Force Academy or for grant of Sho1i Service Comision in the Army.

Candidates who were previously withdrawn from the Indian Military Academy for lack of Oficer like qualities wil not be admited to the Indian Military Academy.

Candidates who were previously selected as Special Entry Naval Cadets but were w ithdrawn from the National Defence Academy or from Naval Training Establishments for l ack of Oficer - like qualities wil not be eligible for admision to the Indian Navy.

8 of

Candidates who were withdrawn from Indian Military Academy, Oficers' Training Acad emy, NC and Graduate course for lack of Oficer - like qualities wil not be considered for grant of Short Service Comision in the Army.

Candidates who were previously withdrawn from the NC and Graduates' course for lack of Oficer - like qualities wil n ot be admited to the Indian Military Academy. "

¶5In view of the aforesaid, i t is submited that the disqualification s do not include —previous medical u " or —prior rele medical ground". It is further su er withdrawn for want of either Oficer Like Qualities or on any disciplinary, character or aptitude ground and the sole reason for his withdrawal was the injury as has ben mentioned above. It is further contended that there was no supresion of any —mat erial fact" as wel as —no d eliberate false declaration" was made by the petitioner inasmuch as he ha d disclosed his joining in NDA in aplication form, and same is also the admited case of the respondents.

¶6It is pointed out that the fact of examinat ion of the petitioner by Invalidment Medical Board constituted by the respondent s was wel within the ir knowledge. Insofar as the answers "NO' in th interogation form as to whether the petitioner had ever ben —rejected" or —discharged" as med t, it is submited that a cadet/traine, who was withdrawn/ invalidated on medical grounds during training , would not be considered a candidate , who was —rejected" at selection or —disch - "NO' , therefore, as per learned coun sel for the petitioner, were a

9 of

bonafide

understanding of ambiguous question , and were not calculated to deceive as otherwise, the petitioner would not have disclosed his NDA atendance and training in his main aplication in the subject recruitment proces .

¶7It is further contended that the enquiry as per the interogation form was neither specific nor internaly consistent. It is argued that t he relevant document uses the express —disability" in another , and at no place there is any specific question directed to —invalidment". Relianc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India 1 , to submit that where the query put to the candidate is vague and not specific, no adverse action c an be founded on the aleged non - disclosure.

¶8It is further contended that aforesaid aleged non - disclosure was not material. It is the submision of learned counsel for the petitioner that supresion of —material" information presuposes that what is

withheld —matters" , i.e., its disclosure would have altered the decision on eligibility. Hence, it is argued that prior medical unfitnes is not a disqualification under the notification , and as the petitioner has independently ben found "FIT' on fresh examination, he can not sufer any disqualification on acount of afore said aleged non - disclosure. It is further argued that at the time of withdrawal from NDA , the petitioner was mere ly a 19 - year - old cadet and not an oficer or oficer - traine , who could not reasonably be expected to apreciate

1 (2016) 8 SC 471

of

the legal consequences of the invalidment , and his signatures /specimen were obtained on a pre - printed proforma dated th December, 202. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not file apeal against the medi cal finding s dated 15.12.202 as he ha d no ocasion to contest the same at th at relevant point in time , and the same canot be considered as a lifetime disqualification. It is further the case of the petitioner that the final order of invalidment , stated t o be isued in 2024 , was never served upon the petitioner and the same therefore , would not bind the petitioner .

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has not ben granted any disability pension, ex - servicemen st atus or ex - gratia benefits ordinarily extended to soldiers, oficers or cadets who are genuinely invalid ed /medicaly discharged from service , and absence of any such consequence confirms that , the petitioner does not stand on the foting of a person perman ently invalided out of service . T herefore, this canot be taken as purpose of denying him induction in the present recruitment proces.

. It is finaly argued that not every non - disclosure or technical false statement would not entail automatic disquali fication. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Hon'ble A bad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Division Bench in case of Sidharth Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. 2 , ( particularly on para graph s 23 to 26 ) , to submit that the Courts can intervene if the punishm ent imposed by an

2 W.P. No. 3103 of 2018 decided on 20.06.2018 : 2018 SC OnLine Al 2358

of

authority is —shocking disproport aleged fault.

1 1 . For the purpose of doctrine of proportionality, reliance has ben placed on the folowing judgments by learned counsel for the petitioner : - a. Com misioner of Police v. Sandep Kumar, (201) 4 SC 64;

b.

Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (209) 15 SC 620.

1 2 . Aditionaly , it is further submited that the petitioner was never isued any show - cause notice no r any writen reasons and same have

emerge d only when the present petition was filed and counter afidavit has ben placed on record by the respondents .

1 3 . Heard learned counsel s for the parties and perused the records.

14.

Comunication dated th Mar ch, 2024 with respect to Invaliding Medical Board Procedings against the Petitioner as Cadet 145 NDA has ben placed on record and same reads thus: -

of

— "

15.

A perusal of the aforesaid comunication would reflect that invaliding medical procedings dated th December, 202 with

of

respect to the petitioner was aproved by DGMS on 26 th February, 2024. The said comunication further refers to N ote S het (N - 20 ) dated 13 th February, 2024, whereby apeal filed by the petitioner against the IMB procedings on med ical ground was rejected.

16.

Part - VI

of the aforesaid I nvalidation Medical Board procedings further records as under: -

— "

17.

The aforesaid medical documents/ record further demonstrate

that the petitioner had refused to undergo operation/treatment after having ben explained the efects of the same. It further records that the medical board has considered it probable that the operation/treatment would have cure d the disability and reduce d it in percentage probably by 50%. Similarly, it has ben fur ther recorded that the medical board did not c operation as reasonable as in its opinion, the petitioner was "advised

of

P ercutaneous screw fixation and was counseled about bad prognosis if surgery is not undertaken '. The f olowing portion from the medical record is reproduced hereinbelow: - — "

of

18.

By way of c ertificate for comutation of pension dated 15 th December, 202, the petitioner was certified for comutation of pension and was given fitnes certificate for civil e mployment. The said certificate for comutation of pension dated 15 th December, 202 is reproduced as under: - — "

19.

Further, i t is pertinent to note that a note with respect to —Employability of Armed Forces Person Retiring In Low Medical

of

Category" also forms part of the aforesaid procedings, which is reproduced as under: - — "

of

. A perusal of the aforesaid documents would demonstrate that the petitioner was admitedly invalid at ed out from NDA, Khadakwasla . The sequence of recomendation of the med ical procedings as wel as the confirmation of the subsequent authorities is as under: - — "

1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19 th August, 2026 Date of decision : 25 th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC01030612026 + W.P.(C) 9615/2026 & CM APL. 4842 - 43 /2026 TARUN KUMAR TRIPATHI (AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS) CDS EXAMINATION: CDS - I 2025 BATCH NO. D - CDSE/752 UPSC ROL NO. 0803847 MERIT RANK: S/O SHRI RAJESH KUMAR R / O H. NO. RZF 626 B, SANJAY GANDHI MARG RAJNAGAR PART - 2, PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI - 107 . PETITIONER Through: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Dhaka, Mr. Abh ishek Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Harsh Dhaka, Advs. versus 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 101 (uoidhc@gmail.com) . RESPONDENT NO. 1 2. CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAF INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 101 ( uoidhc@gmail.com ) . RESPONDENT NO. 2 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL ARMED FORCES MEDICAL SERVICES 2 of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 'A' BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 1023 . RESPONDENT NO. ( uoidhc@gmail.com ) 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL RECRUITING (CDS ENTRY) INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY), WEST BLOCK - I RK PURAM NEW DELHI - 106 ( uoidhc@gmail.com ) . RESPONDENT NO. 4 Through: Ms Amrita Prakash CGSC with Sidharth Srivastava Adv . Major Anish Muralidhar Army . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA