Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant, Mr. Somvir under Section 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
8 (a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper
adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice, and thereafter;
(b) To quash and setting aside the impugned order published through internet by which the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled
with the contentions 'Medical Unfit' neglecting the case of the applicant for appointment to alternative posts and thereafter directing the
respondents to consider and finalise the request of the applicant for appointment to alternative posts for which the applicant is found fit
within some stipulated period.
(c) Directing the respondents to appoint the applicant against the vacancies notified under the Employment Notification No.220E/Open
Mkt./RRC/2012 dt. 30.08.12, with all other consequential benefits from the date from which the batch mates of the applicants have been
appointed etc.
d) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants.
2. The synopsis of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that in response to the notification No. 220E/Open Mkt/RRC/20 dated 30.08.2012
published by the respondents to fill up Group ‘D’ posts (Helper, Track Man, Porters, Pointsman, Gateman, Safaiwala and Cleaners) in the
Railways, the applicant, an OBC candidate applied for the same and qualified in the selection process (i.e, written test and Physical Efficiency Test
(PET)). Thereafter, on the basis of his performance in the written test and PET, he was provisionally found eligible for verification/checking of
original/certificates. However, he was found ‘unfit’ in medical categories and was asked to apply for Review Medical Board after taking
treatment and being declared fit. Though, the applicant underwent treatment and recovered vide fitness certificate dated 11.07.2014 issued by the
General Hospital, Sonipat and applied for the review Medical Board along with the aforesaid fitness certificate, he was again declared unfit and was
informed verbally about it. Consequently, he requested for appointment on an alternative post for which he was asked to wait. However, his
candidature was rejected with remarks ‘Medical unfit’. Moreover, the respondents did not pay any heed to his request for alternative post.
Aggrieved, the applicant submitted an appeal dated 02.09.2015 in this regard, but to no avail.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant based his arguments mainly on the ground that the respondents had deliberately with biased mind and in an
arbitrary manner rejected his candidature by passing a non-speaking, cryptic and unreasoned impugned order. According to him his candidature should
have been considered as admittedly he qualified in all the selection process including the medical fitness as is evident from the fitness certificate dated
11.07.2014 issued by the General Hospital Sonipat. He added that once he qualified and secured a position in the merit list, cancelling his candidature
on the ground of ‘Medical Unfit’ is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. To strengthen his case, learned counsel relied upon the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Rakesh Kumar Ranjan vs. Railway
Board & Ors., in OA No. 471 & 472/2010 dated 06.08.2013. However, the same is not on record.
5. Raising preliminary objection that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant to file the OA, learned counsel of the respondents have prayed for
dismissal of this OA. Denying the contentions of the learned counsel of the applicant, he stated that vide Memo No. 243862 dated 26.05.2014 the
applicant was sent for medical examination where it was found that he was suffering from “Partial loss of distal Phalanx of Left index finger†and
for this reason he was declared unfit in A-2 and below category. This unfit memo was forwarded to the Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern
Railway Lucknow. Thereafter, the applicant was again directed for medical re-examination on an appeal submitted by him along with the certificate
issued by a Private Doctor. However, he was again declared unfit for A-2 and below category for the same reason of ‘Partial loss of distal Phalanx
of Left Index Finger’. Learned counsel further submitted that as per para 511 (1) to (3) (f) of Indian Railway Medical Regulation, 2000, a
candidate for appointment in Railway Service must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any defect likely to interfere with the effective
performance of the duties of his appointment.
Thus, according to the respondents they have rightly rejected the candidature of the applicant in accordance with the rules and instructions on the
subject.
6. Heard learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. We
have observed that the applicant was sent to Divisional Hospital, Northern Railway, Lucknow for medical examination by the Assistant Personnel
Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow on 26.05.2014 for proposed appointment to Group ‘D’ post. After medical examination of the applicant, it
was found that his was a case of “Partial loss of distal phalanx of left index fingerâ€. Accordingly, the applicant was declared unfit in A-2 and
below category. This unfit memo of the applicant dated 28.05.2014 was forwarded to the Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
However, the applicant submitted an appeal based on the Certificate issued by a private Doctor of Sonepat and approached the Divisional Hospital,
Northern Railway, Lucknow for medical re-examination. The medical re-examination on 20.04.2015 confirmed and again concluded that the applicant
was suffering from “Partial loss of distal phalanx of left index fingerâ€. Accordingly the appellate authority vide their memo dated 10.09.2015 again
declared the applicant as unfit in A-2 and below category.
7. We have also observed that this selection is for the recruitment cycle that was initiated in 2012 â€" more than 12 years ago. There is no interim
protection enjoyed by the applicant in this case that a group D post is reserved for him against the Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open
Mkt/RRC/2012 dated 30.08.2012. With the efflux of time all these posts must have been long ago filled up and now at this very belated stage no relief
can be granted to the applicant. Also we have observed that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice; no discriminatory, arbitrary and
unjust action of the respondents. The applicant failed in the first medical examination on 26.05.2014 and again failed in the medical re-examination on
20.04.2015. He was thus accorded ‘reasonable opportunity’ but failed to meet the medical standards. He lacked the essential requirement of
adequate physical faculties for the efficient and effective discharge of his duties as a Grade D employee in the Railways. It is a settled principle in
service jurisprudence that right for appointment in government service is not an indefeasible and unfettered right of an aspirant for government service
as per the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in Shankarsan Dash vs. UOI AIR 1991 SC 1612.
8. In the light of the above the balance of convenience clearly lies with the respondents in this case. We are not inclined to interfere with the rejection
order of the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
