Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Tuleshwar Sahu vs South East Central Railway on 2 December, 2025
1
(Reserved on 13.11.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur)
This the 02nd day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 22 of 2024
Tuleshwar Sahu, S/o Tulsiram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village and
PO - Karhibhadar, Tehsil and District - Balod, Chhattisgarh - 491226.
.......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Shailesh Tiwari
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through General Manager, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur - 495004 (CG).
2. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur -
495004 (CG).
3. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh - 495004.
4. Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Personnel
Department, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004.
5. R. Shankaran, Assistant Personnel Officer - III under Sr. Divisional
Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur - 495004 (CG).
......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Palas Tiwari
ANAND 2025.12.03
PRAKASH 16:12:16
Page 1 of 12
DUBEY +05'30'
2
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
Challenge in the present original application is the termination of services of the applicant vide order dated 17.02.2023 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that he was not found fit in A-2 medical category. Further, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to provide him alternative appointment as per prescribed medical classification.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.03.2019, applicant applied for the post of Pointsman and he was declared successful in the written examination held on 20.02.2023. Thereafter he was offered employment for the post of trainee Pro. Pointsman vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure A/3) after being declared fit in 'AYE TWO' and below category by the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent of the concerned medical department. The applicant was also found fit in AYE- TWO and below category by the Personnel Department, Railway Recruitment, Cell, Bilaspur vide notice dated 24.03 2023 (Annexure A/4). Thereafter, vide order dated 29.05.2023 the applicant was selected to the post of pointsman/OPG completed mandatory training at MDZTI/SECR/BSP from 01-06-2023 to 30-06-2023. The applicant stated that earlier, pursuant to notice dated 28.01.2019 for recruitment of various NTPC, Graduate and Under graduate Courses, he applied for the examination and was ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 2 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 3 provisionally shortlisted for verification of documents and medical examination where he was found unfit in AYE -2 medical category but fit in AYE-3 and below medical category. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-1) terminated the services of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant original application inter alia on the grounds that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set-aside.
3. The applicant contended that he was found to fit under A/2 medical classification in which he was appointed as Pointsman and under gone requisite training whereas he was declared unfit for A-2 category by the Medical Board through letter dated 10.07 2023 for completely another exam conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board for Recruitment into the Various Posts of NTCP, therefore, the action of the respondents is perverse and unjustified. The applicant also stated that since he was appointed to the post of Pointsman after due selection process and completed requisite training, therefore, he ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing by giving one month notice. The applicant further contended that though he was assessed to be 'unfit for the AYE-2 medical category in some other Exam but he was found fit for the AYE-3 medical category, therefore, he should have been provided alternate employment ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 3 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 4 in any of the available AYE -3 medical category posts in the railway department as provided under chapter 13 of the Indian Railway, establishment, manual vol. 1.
4. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and filed reply stating therein that the applicant was found unfit in AYE-2, but found fit in AYE-3 category in the medical examination conducted viz CEN/01/2019. Further, on his request, the applicant was sent for re- medical examination wherein he was again declared unfit for Aye-Two Medical Category by the Railway Medical Board and accordingly his services were terminated. The respondents have further stated that as per "Master Circular 25", the option of absorption of medically de-categorized staff is only available for the permanent employees and not for Temporary or trainee employees. Since the Applicant was only given a provisional appointment as the applicant's training was already undergoing, therefore he is not entitled to be absorbed in alternative post. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is misleading and the OA deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. We have heard Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Palas Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents at length.
ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 4 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 5
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a regularly selected' Pointsman and completed training, including on- ground field duties, therefore, there was no reason for the respondents to be influenced by a separate medical board formed for a different Notification i.e. CEN 01/2019 for 'Recruitment of Various NTPC, Graduate, and Undergraduate Courses', dated 28.02.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that even if the applicant was not found fit under the AYE-2 category but he was found fit under the AYE-3 category, therefore, he may be considered for alternative absorption against other available posts or Group D posts but the Respondents neither evaluated alternative placement options as required under Chapter 13 of the I.R.E.M. (Indian Railway Establishment Manual) nor placed him on a supernumerary post; instead, they arbitrarily terminated his service.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as per the I.R.E.M. (Indian Railway Establishment Manual) Vol-1, Chapter 3, Rule 301 (Annexure A/10), one month notice is required whereas no notice was given to the applicant before his termination. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per Vol-1, Chapter 3, Rule 304 of the I.R.E.M. , a Railway servant who fails in a vision test or otherwise by virtue of disability acquired during service and becomes physically incapable of ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 5 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 6 performing the duties of the post which he occupies should not be dispensed with or reduced in rank, but should be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the term 'Railway Servant' has been defined under Clause 43 of Rule 103 in Volume 1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code according to which a probationer, in all practicality, will be regarded as a railway servant unless the applicable rule specifically stipulates otherwise. Consequently, the benefit conferred by Rule 304, Vol 1, Chapter 3, of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I.R.E.M.) is also applicable to a probationer. Therefore, as per the aforementioned regulations, the applicant is entitled for alternative employment.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued that the post of Pointsman is a safety-category post, requiring outdoor duties, physical endurance, and operational safety of trains therefore, under the Indian Railway Medical Manual and recruitment rules, fitness in AYE-Il category is mandatory. Since the applicant failed to meet this essential condition, his provisional appointment automatically stood invalid. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that mere inclusion in a select list or even issuance of a provisional appointment ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 6 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 7 order does not create a vested right to continue if eligibility conditions are not fulfilled. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav- 1994(6) SCC 151 and submitted that applying the principle laid down in the said judgment, the applicant herein, though provisionally selected, did not fulfill the condition of medical fitness in the prescribed AYE-II category, and therefore, acquired no vested right to hold the post. The learned counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran - (1995) Sup (S) SCC 100 and Union of India Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar - (2007) 8 SCC 100 and submitted that in posts where medical standards are prescribed in public interest, a candidate found medically unfit cannot insist on appointment. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that applicant, having failed to satisfy the essential condition of medical fitness, is not entitled for appointment as a matter of right.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading as well. We have also perused the pleadings and considered the rival submissions. ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 7 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 8
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the material placed on record, it is not disputed that pursuant to the Notification No. RC 01/2019 dated 23.02.2019, the applicant was appointed vide order dated 22.03.2023 to the post of Pro Pointsman after being found medically Fit in AYE-2 category and sent for training from 01.06.2023 to 30.06.2023. The applicant was also sent for field training from 01.07.2023 to 31.07.2023. Earlier to this examination, the applicant also appeared in another examination pursuant to the Centralized Employment Notice CEN No. 01/2019 dated 28.02.2019 for recruitment of Non Technical Popular Categories (NTPC) Graduate & Under Graduate Posts (Annexure A-6) in which he was also qualified and called for medical examination. Accordingly, the applicant appeared in the medical examination where he was categorized as 'Unfit' in AYE-2 medical category but found fit in AYE-3 and below medical category. Thereafter, the applicant was examined by the Medical Board where he was again declared 'Unfit' in AYE-2 medical category and based upon this medical report, the services of the applicant as Pro Pointsman has been terminated vide order dated 17.10.2023.
11. It is notable that while taking the cognizance of medical report relating to 'Unfit' in AYE-2 category, the respondents have ignored the ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 8 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 9 later part of the said medical report that he was found fit in AYE-3 & below category based upon which the applicant had requested for his absorption in alternative employment and have not only rejected his claim on the basis of Point 3 of Master Circular-25 but also terminated his service without any notice to him despite the fact that nowhere the applicant was declared medically unfit in the requisite medical category of AYE-2 conducted for the post of Pro Pointsman pursuant to the notification of RRC dated 23.02.2019.
12. It is also notable that as per para 2 (1)(c) of Rule 301 Chapter 3 Vol. I of Indian Railway Establishment Code., one month's notice is required in case of termination of Group C and Group D railway servants on probation and the respondents have utterly failed to show that any notice was given to the applicant before terminating his services.
13. Further, the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant basically relying upon Master Circular -25 according to which the option of absorption of medically de-categorized staff is only available for the permanent employees and not for temporary or trainee employees. On the other hand, we take note of Master Circular
- 35. Para 8.1 of said Circular provides as under: -
ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 9 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 10 "8.1. Railway servants, both permanent and temporary, who are declared medically unfit for service in the posts held by them, but are declared fit for service in posts which fall in a lower medical category are eligible to be continued in service in posts requiring a lower medical standard. Alternative employment is normally provided to such personnel in posts corresponding to their lower medical standard. However, where in the case of temporary employees becoming medically decategorised on account of circumstances not arising out of and in the course of employment alternate employment is not found within the period of leave/ extension of leave/extraordinary leave granted to the railway servants as admissible under the rules, the employees, should be discharged from service.
Where the offer of alternative employment (one or more offers) have/ been refused the railway servants concerned should be retired."
In view of the above, the respondents are not justified in not considering the medical report of another exam in true spirit and objective manner. While taking cognizance of the said medical report, it was for the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for absorption in a alternative employment against AYE-3 and below medical category by applying terms of Clause 43 of Rule 103 of Vol. I of Indian Railway Establishment Code, which defines term of "Railway Servant" as ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 10 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 11 well as para 8.1 of Master Circular -35 in true essence. On perusal of Clause 43 of Rule 103, it is evident that a probationer in all practicality deserves to be regarded as a railway servant unless the applicable rule specifically stipulates otherwise.
14. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, in our considered opinion, are based on different facts. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the issue was involved with regard to appointment in AYE-II category for which the candidates were found unfit at the entry level and were not appointed, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that mere inclusion of a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any indefeasible right to appointment. But, at the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that in the present case, the applicant was appointed after declaring fit in AYE-II medical category and imparted training and his services were terminated on the basis of a medical report of some other examination of the Railway pursuant to a different advertisement/notification. It is true that no candidate acquire a right to appointment unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down in the recruitment rules, but the fact that in the said medical report based upon which the services of the applicant have been terminated, he was declared fit for AYE-3 & below category, cannot be ANAND 2025.12.03 PRAKASH 16:12:16 Page 11 of 12 DUBEY +05'30' 12 ignored. The respondents have also failed to produce any rule or the law to show that whether the services of a candidate who has been appointed after being found fit in requisite medical category, can be terminated out rightly on the basis of adverse medical report conducted for selection to a particular post notified through separate advertisement.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, the case of the applicant deserves consideration. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 22/2024 is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for alternative appointment against a suitable post having AYE-3 & below category in accordance with rules quoted above. It is made clear that while absorbing the applicant in alternative employment, the interest of staff in service in that cadre may not be adversely affected. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of consideration of the case of the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
ANAND 2025.12.03
PRAKASH 16:12:16
Page 12 of 12
DUBEY +05'30'