IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 574 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/03/2008 in WP NO : 2835 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ram Narayan Singh [JC-727328X NAIB SUBEDAR] presently posted to R/o. Administrative Battalion AOC Centre, Secunderabad [AP] ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India New Delhi-11 2 The Chief of Army Staff Army Headquarters, Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence, Government of India New Delhi-11 3 The Officer In-Charge AOC Records, Secunderabad [AP] 4 The Officer Commanding Adm Battalion, HQ AOC Centre, Secunderabad [AP] .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.VISHAL SAXENA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-2008 passed in W.P.No.2835 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. The appellant-petitioner was working as a Naib Subedar in Indian Army. He had made a complaint with regard to his inability to see from his left eye. He was examined by a Senior Adviser (Ophthalmology) and he found that there was perforated corneal ulcer in the left eye and therefore, his case had been referred to the Medical Invalidation Board. Upon examination, it was found by the Board that the appellant was fit to be released from service as his eyesight was not proper and in the circumstances, he was released from service. Being aggrieved by the order of release from service, the aforestated petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner. After examining the record and upon hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the petition. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant- original petitioner. It has been submitted by him that with an oblique motive, the appellant had been released from service, but he could not make out any case against the Members of the Board. We do not see any reason to believe that with a malafide intention, the Board had come to the conclusion regarding defect in the eyesight of the petitioner. In fact, the learned Single Judge had called for the entire record and had meticulously gone through the record and he has come to the conclusion that the appellant was examined by the Medical Board on 12-2-2008 and thereafter the Board had come to the conclusion that the appellant deserved to be released from Army under Rule 13 of the Indian Army Rules, 1954. We do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 17th June, 2008 _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies