The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Combined Defence Services (CDS) candidate seeking immediate joining instructions for the Indian Military Academy (IMA), after finding that he had suppressed material information regarding an earlier medical invalidation from the National Defence Academy (NDA).
A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma delivered the judgment on August 25, 2026. The petitioner, a 23-year-old resident of Palam Colony in New Delhi, had qualified the CDS-II 2025 examination with Merit Rank and sought directions permitting him to join the IMA-161 course.
The court, however, declined to grant relief after examining his previous medical history and declarations made during the CDS selection process. It found that he had failed to disclose that he had earlier suffered a serious injury while undergoing training at the NDA and had subsequently been declared permanently medically unfit for future military service.
The candidate had joined the 145th course of the National Defence Academy as an Indian Army cadet on April 23, 2021, after clearing the required written examination and medical assessment. During his fourth term at the academy, he suffered a stress fracture involving the neck of his left femur while participating in a cross-country run.
Following the injury, a medical board recommended his withdrawal from the NDA on medical grounds in December 2022. The proceedings subsequently went through the required approval process and were finally accepted in February 2024. His appeal against the medical decision was rejected on February 13, 2024.
According to the court record, the invaliding medical board had declared him permanently unfit for future military service while finding him fit for civil employment. The board also recorded that he had declined a recommended surgical procedure which, in its assessment, could have reduced the extent of his disability.
After leaving the NDA and completing his graduation, the candidate continued attempting to enter the uniformed services. He appeared for the Indian Coast Guard Assistant Commandant examination and was subsequently declared medically fit by Army Hospital (Research and Referral), New Delhi. He also received an appointment order dated January 2, 2026.
At around the same time, he appeared in the CDS-II 2025 examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and successfully secured a place in the provisional merit list with Merit Rank 111.
During the CDS selection process, the candidate disclosed that he had previously attended the NDA. However, he did not disclose that his tenure at the academy had ended following medical withdrawal due to the femoral neck stress fracture.
The Delhi High Court took particular note of his responses in the CDS medical examination documents dated February 13, 2026. He had answered “No” when asked whether he had ever been discharged from any branch of the Armed Forces on medical grounds and whether he had previously been hospitalised because of an illness, operation or injury.
The Army subsequently did not issue him joining instructions for the IMA-161 course, citing the non-disclosure of his previous medical history.
Before the High Court, the candidate argued that the CDS-II 2025 notification did not specifically identify previous medical invalidation from a military training academy as a disqualification.
The CDS notification dated May 28, 2025, specifically referred to circumstances such as candidates previously removed from NDA, IMA, Air Force Academy, Indian Naval Academy or Officers Training Academy on disciplinary grounds, or those withdrawn because of lack of Officer-Like Qualities. The candidate contended that since previous medical unfitness was not separately mentioned in this list, his earlier invalidation could not automatically prevent his entry into the IMA.
He also relied on his subsequent medical fitness for the Indian Coast Guard, arguing that the later medical assessments by Army Hospital (R&R) and the Armed Forces Central Medical Establishment demonstrated that he was currently fit for service.
According to his arguments, these subsequent fitness certificates effectively superseded the earlier finding of medical unfitness. He further maintained that any failure to disclose his previous medical history arose from a bona-fide interpretation of the questions rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive the authorities.
The Delhi High Court rejected these arguments and held that the medical questions placed before the candidate were clear and concerned information directly relevant to determining his suitability for military service.
The Bench observed that the candidate was fully aware of the injury he had sustained at the NDA, his hospitalisation and the subsequent medical board proceedings when he completed the CDS medical documents.
The court held that subsequent medical fitness for another service could not erase his previous medical history. Instead, the earlier injury and invalidation should have been disclosed so that the competent medical authorities conducting the CDS assessment could independently determine whether the injury continued to have any bearing on his fitness for training at the IMA and eventual service in the Indian Army.
The Bench observed that the candidate had given an incorrect declaration regarding his previous injury or fracture and concluded that there was suppression of a material fact concerning the injury sustained earlier.
The court also found inconsistencies in the declarations made by the candidate across different documents. His reliance on later medical fitness certificates did not help his case because the authorities issuing those certificates had not been informed about the previous medical invalidation, according to the judgment.
The Bench relied upon previous Delhi High Court decisions concerning suppression of medical history during recruitment, including G.C. Abhimanyu Singh v. Union of India and Harsh Chauhan v. Border Security Force.
The court reiterated that withholding information regarding an earlier injury or medical unfitness can constitute a valid ground for disqualification when the information is material to determining a candidate’s suitability for service.
The judgment also emphasised the importance of integrity and honesty among candidates aspiring to become commissioned officers in the Armed Forces. A candidate cannot decide for himself that an earlier injury is no longer relevant merely because he has subsequently been declared medically fit elsewhere. The responsibility for assessing the significance of such medical history rests with the competent medical authorities.
The candidate had also raised objections over the absence of a formal show-cause notice before he was denied entry into the IMA. The court was not persuaded by this argument, noting that no final appointment letter had been issued to him. His candidature remained provisional and subject to completion of the prescribed medical and other requirements.
The ruling is significant for candidates appearing for CDS, NDA and other Armed Forces entry examinations because it makes a distinction between having a previous medical condition and concealing that condition during a subsequent recruitment process.
The judgment does not establish that every candidate previously medically boarded out from a military academy is automatically and permanently prohibited from attempting another defence entry. Instead, the decisive issue in this case was the failure to disclose the earlier injury and medical invalidation.
A candidate who truthfully declares a previous injury, hospitalisation or medical invalidation allows the Armed Forces medical authorities to examine the circumstances and conduct an informed assessment of present fitness. Concealing that history, on the other hand, prevents the medical board from performing that assessment with complete information.
The case is particularly relevant because training at institutions such as the NDA and IMA involves sustained physical stress, including running, route marches, obstacle training and other demanding activities. A previous serious stress fracture can therefore constitute information that medical specialists may consider while evaluating whether a candidate can safely withstand the physical requirements of military training and service.
The fact that a candidate may subsequently be declared fit for another uniformed service also does not necessarily determine fitness for the Army. Different services, appointments and training establishments can involve different medical standards and operational requirements.
The case also highlights a separate issue surrounding cadets who are medically withdrawn from military academies after suffering injuries during training. Such cases have periodically generated demands for improved financial assistance, rehabilitation and institutional support for cadets who are injured before receiving their commissions. However, the Delhi High Court’s decision in the present matter was concerned with the candidate’s declarations during a fresh selection process rather than the broader policy surrounding medically invalidated cadets.
For defence aspirants, the judgment serves as an important reminder to disclose previous fractures, major injuries, hospitalisation, surgeries, medical board proceedings and earlier medical rejection or invalidation whenever such information is sought during recruitment.
Even where candidates believe that an old medical condition has completely healed, the appropriate course is to disclose it and allow the designated medical board to determine its relevance to current fitness.
With the High Court finding that the candidate had suppressed a material fact concerning his previous medical history, the petition seeking directions for his immediate joining at the Indian Military Academy was dismissed. The pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
The ruling ultimately reinforces that selection for India’s officer training academies is dependent not only on performance in the written examination, SSB and medical assessment, but also on the accuracy and integrity of the information supplied by candidates throughout the recruitment process.
