OA No.

389/2016

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA No. 389/2016
Page | 1
Reserved on: 21.01.2020
Pronounced on: 28.01.2020

Hon’ble Mr. S. N. Terdal, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Satnarayan (Aged about 21 years),

S/o Sh. Tilak Raj,
R/o Village Brahman Majra,
P.O. Bhadour, Distt. Panipat (Haryana).
Recruitment for Group ‘D’ Post.
...Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. P. S. Khare)

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chairman (Dy. C.P.O.),

Railway Recruitment Cell,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

3. The Chief Medical Director,

Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
...Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Satpal Singh)

ORDER
Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A):-

In response to Employment Notice No. 220-

E/Open/Mkt/RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013 issued

 OA No. 389/2016

by Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC), Northern

Railway (NR), New Delhi for filling up of total 5679

vacancies, including the vacancies reserved for

Page | 2
handicapped persons, the applicant applied for the

same in the handicapped quota, being Visually

Handicapped (VH) candidate. The applicant

qualified the written examination held on

23.11.2014 and was called for medical

examination. The applicant was having 100%

disability and was shortlisted in the VH candidate

category. However, no intimation was given to him

during or after the medical examination.

2. The respondents declared the results on

RRC website declaring the applicant “medically

unfit for all categories”. The applicant sought

clarifications regarding his rejection in the

selection under the provisions of Right to

Information (RTI) Act, 2005 through his application

dated 16.11.2015 and 26.11.2015. However, no

reply was given by the respondents. It is submitted

by the applicant that he made a representation

dated 05.12.2015 seeking medical re-examination

but no action was taken by the respondents. The

applicant contends that the respondents have not

 OA No. 389/2016

followed the provisions of Railway Board’s Circular

No. 2014/H/8(Policy) dated 05.06.2014 for

conducting his medical re-examination. He has

Page | 3
also cited the orders passed in OA No. 2720/2013.

Aggrieved by the action on the part of the

respondents, the applicant has filed the present

OA seeking the following relief(s):-

“(a) To allow the OA and quash the impugned

order dated 30.10.2015 with all consequential
benefits; and further direct the respondents to
conduct remedial examination by the Medical
Board and consequently release the appointment
as per merit.

(b) To pass any other or further order or direction

which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice.”

3. The interim relief prayed for by the

applicant was not granted by the Tribunal.

However, vide order dated 19.02.2016, the

respondents were directed that any selection made

by the respondents will be subject to the outcome

of this OA. The primary contention of the applicant

is regarding non conduct of medical re-

examination by the Medical Board.

4. The respondents in their counter affidavit

have opposed the OA indicating that the applicant

failed to prefer an appeal against the initial medical

 OA No. 389/2016

examination to the Chief Medical Director,

Northern Railway within one month of the

declaration of the result in terms of Railway

Page | 4
Board’s letter No. 2014/H/5/8 (Policy) dated

31.12.2015 issued as a corrigendum to the letter of

even number dated 05.06.2014. In Para 4.4. of the

counter affidavit, the respondents stated as

under:-

“ The applicant was declared unfit

physically handicap quota (V.H.) due
to severe Hypertension (170/110 mm
Hg) with left ventricular Hypertrophy
with Grade I systolic murmurs in
mitral area and tricuspid murmur on
2 D. Echo. Severe hypertension along
with cardiac disease renders a
candidate unfit as per IRMM 2000.”

5. It has been reiterated in the counter reply

that the candidate should have appealed against

the result of initial medical examination within one

month in terms of extant rules and since he did

not do so, there is no ground for him to seek relief

in this regard.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied

upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA

No. 4216/2015 dated 27.09.2016 and OA No.

383/2016 dated 19.01.2018. Learned counsel for

the respondents submitted medical report of the

 OA No. 389/2016

medical examination of the applicant and relied

upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA

No. 390/2016 dated 06.01.2019.

Page | 5

7. We heard Mr. P.S. Khare, learned counsel

for the applicant and Mr. Satpal Singh, learned

counsel for the respondents.

8. The applicant applied under the reserved

quota in reference to the Employment Notice No.

220E/open-mkt/RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013

issued by NR. He is having 100% disability i.e.

visual impairment and, therefore, applied under

physically handicap quota (VH). He cleared the

written examination held on 23.11.2014. He was,

therefore subjected to a medical examination in

terms of the extant rules. The respondents rejected

his candidature declaring him “medically unfit for

all categories”. No clarifications were provided in

response to the queries sought by the applicant

under the RTI, Act. The applicant also claims to

have submitted an appeal dated 05.12.2015 for

medical re-examination. However, the respondents

denied having received such an appeal from the

applicant. The applicant has relied upon the

 OA No. 389/2016

Railway Board’s Circular dated 05.06.2014

regarding consideration of appeal of candidate

declared unfit upon medical examination and also

Page | 6
the Advance Correction Slip No. 1/2014 of Para

522 of IRMM, 2000, regarding the same. The

relevant paras of Railway Board’s circular dated

05.06.2014, read as under:-

“ The matter has been considered at length

in Board’s Office and the following guidelines
are laid down for medical examination of
candidates for non-Gazetted posts, disposal
of their appeals and other representations
submitted to higher authorities:-

(i) Medical Examination – Medical

examination of candidates will be done by a
Medical officer with adequate experience in
doing medical examination and one specially
nominated by the CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in
charge.

(ii) If a candidate has been found to be unfit

on grounds of vision/colour
vision/hypertension/diabetes or any other
condition/ disease, the medical examiner
will not issue any certificate and will put up
his/her findings to the
CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the
unit/Division/Sub-division/production Unit.

(iii) The candidate, without having to submit

any appeal, will then be immediately
examined by a three member standing
medial team consisting of 1) a specialist in
the field; however if the specialist is not
available within the
Unit/Division/Production Unit, a senior
doctor would be nominated in place of a
specialist 2) the medical officer who has
conducted the first medical examination and
3) the third being a senior medical officer
specially nominated by the
CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in charge.”
 OA No. 389/2016

9. The relevant paras of Advance Correction

Slip to para 522 of IRMM, 2000, read as under:-

“(i) Medical Examination – Medical

Page | 7
examination of candidates will be done by
a Medical officer with adequate
experience in doing medical examination
and one specially nominated by the
CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in charge.

(ii) If a candidate has been found to be

unfit on grounds of vision/colour
vision/hypertension/diabetes or any
other condition/ disease, the medical
examiner will not issue any certificate
and will put up his/her findings to the
CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the
unit/Division/Sub-division/production
Unit.

(iii) The candidate, without having to

submit any appeal, will then be
immediately examined by a three member
standing medial team consisting of 1) a
specialist in the field; however if the
specialist is not available within the
Unit/Division/Production Unit, a senior
doctor would be nominated in place of a
specialist 2) the medical officer who has
conducted the first medical examination
and 3) the third being a senior medical
officer specially nominated by the
CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in charge.”

10. Learned counsel for the applicant argued

that the applicant is 100% visually impaired and,

therefore, he rightly applied in physically handicap

category (VH). However, he has been declared

“unfit in all categories”. No re-examination has

been undertaken in terms of above mentioned

circular which prescribes that no appeal is

 OA No. 389/2016

required for further examination by a three

member Standing Medical Team.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents Page | 8

reiterated the points made in the counter reply

submitting that the applicant should have applied

for re-examination within a period of one month of

declaration of medical result in terms of Railway

Board’s circular dated 05.06.2014 seeking re-

medical examination.

12. It is not the case of the applicant that his

visual impairment was in question. It is that he

has been declared unfit for all medical categories

on the basis of severe hypertension along with

cardiac disease etc. His visual impairment is,

therefore, not in question. The applicant has been

declared “unfit in all categories” because of his

visual impairment which is 100% and also

hypertension and other symptoms of cardiac

disease. Railway Board’s policy circular dated

05.06.2014 quoted above very clearly lays down

that if a candidate had been found to be unfit on

the grounds of vision/colour

vision/hypertension/diabetes or any other

 OA No. 389/2016

condition/disease, the medical examiner will not

issue any certificate and will put up his/her

findings to the CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge. It

Page | 9
is further clarified in para-III of the circular that

the candidate, without having to submit any

appeal, will then be immediately examined by a

three member Standing Medical Team. This aspect

is also reiterated in Advance Correction Slip to

para 522 of IRMM, 2000.

13. In the present case, the visual impairment

of the applicant was not in question and he was

declared medically de-categorised in view of

hypertension and cardiac disease. These are

primarily the grounds mentioned in Railway

Board’s circular dated 05.06.2014 stating that

candidates found not fit on such grounds shall be

subjected to medical examination by three member

Standing Medical Team, without having to submit

an appeal.

14. It is thus evident that the applicant who

was declared “medically unfit for all categories”

should have been subjected to medical

examination by three member Standing Medical

 OA No. 389/2016

Team without submitting an appeal. This has not

been done by the respondents and thus it is in

violation of the extant policy directives contained in

Page | 10
Railway Board’s letter dated 05.06.2014 and also

in Advance Correction Slip 1/2014 Para 522 of

IRMM, 2000.

15. In view of the above mentioned, we allow

the OA setting aside the impugned order dated

30.10.2015 rejecting the candidature of the

applicant and direct the respondents to subject the

applicant to a medical examination by a three

member Standing Medical Team within a period of

three months in terms of Railway Board circular

dated 05.06.2014 and take appropriate action on

the basis of the report of medical re-examination. If

the applicant is found fit in the medical re-

examination he shall be extended the

consequential benefits. Pending MAs, if any, shall

stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to

costs.

(Mohd. Jamshed) (S.N. Terdal)

Member (A) Member (J)

/ankit/