Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19069/2025, CM APPL. 79375/2025 & CM APPL.
79376/2025 YASH MALVIYA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Mr. Sachin Kumar, Ms. Neha Raj and Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar, Advs.
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC
Ms. Shruti Goel, Advs. Major Anish Muralidhar, Army.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
18.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the decision of the Review Medical Board[1] which took place on 8 August 2025 for considering his entitlement for recruitment, following the Combined Defence Services Examination.
2. The petitioner was disqualified on the ground that he had defective colour vision at three stages, at the initial Special Medical “RMB”, hereinafter Board[2] as well as Appellate Medical Board[3] and the RMB.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has produced, before us, the RMB report of the petitioner which indicates that he was found to be suffering from defective colour vision, but further notes that he could not clear the colour vision test “by anomaloscope”.
4. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the Guidelines for Medical Standards and Testing Modalities for Colour Perception for Entry into Armed Forces, which, with respect to detection of colour perception deficiency, provides, as under:
(b) AMB and RMB. In Army, Navy and Air Force, during AMB/ RMB candidates will be tested both with Ishihara Test and Anomaloscope to assess color perception defects.
5. Inasmuch as the petitioner is seeking entry into the OTA/IMA, his case would fall within the parameters of candidates seeking entry into the Army other than aviators.
6. As per the afore-extracted clause, at the SMB stage, colour perception is to be assessed by applying only the Ishihara test, whereas, at the AMB and the RMB stages, the candidates have to be tested both by the Ishihara test and the Anomaloscope.
7. The RMB report which has been provided to us indicates that the petitioner was tested only by Anomaloscope.
8. Though Ms. Arti Bansal, learned CGSC for the respondents, submits that her instructions are that the petitioner was also tested by Ishihara, that is not forthcoming from the report of the RMB. She seeks time to take instructions.
9. Given the nature of the dispute, we do not deem it necessary to keep this matter pending with the Board of this Court.
10. We, accordingly, direct the petitioner to be subjected to a fresh RMB by the Army Hospital (Research and Referral)4, strictly following the discipline of Clause 6 of the aforenoted Guidelines. “R&R Hospital”, hereinafter
11. Mr. Brajesh Kumar undertakes that his client would abide by the outcome of the result of R & R Hospital.
12. For the said purpose, let the petitioner present himself before the R & R Hospital within the next ten days on a date to be intimated to learned Counsel for the petitioner by e-mail as well as by WhatsApp.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 18, 2025