Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Dhanraj Goyal vs M/O Railways on 30 April, 2024
1
OA No. 273/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 273/2016
Order reserved on :19.03.2024
Date of order: 30.04.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Dhanraj Goyal S/o Sh. Babu Lal Goyal, aged about 29
years, resident of Plot No.52, Bal Mandir Colony, Man
Town, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
...Applicant
(By Adv: Shri B.K. Jatti)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jagatpura Road, Jaipur.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, through its
President, Nehru Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel
Department (Establishment) Western Central
Railway, Kota.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri A.S. Shekhawat through V.C.)
2
OA No. 273/2016
ORDER
Per :Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present original application was made by the Applicant, upon being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 22.04.2015 issued by the Respondent No.3., whereby it had been conveyed to the Applicant that he had been found 'Unfit' medically for A-2 category appointment under the Respondents.
2. The matrix of facts relevant in the present case emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant, who possessed the educational qualification of B.E. (Electronics, Instrumentation and Control), had submitted his application for being considered for appointment in the post of Traffic Apprentice in pursuance of the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012, dated 12.5.2012 issued for various posts by the Respondents - Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment Boards. Vide the Letter dated 03.11.2014 of the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer the Applicant was informed that he was recommended for appointment for the post of Traffic Apprentice to the General Manager (Personnel) 3 OA No. 273/2016 Western Central Railway, Jabalpur. It was further conveyed thereby inter alia that the Western Central Railway administration would send the related appointment proposal, provided the Applicant was found fit / eligible for appointment otherwise. Eventually, the Office of Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Personnel Department, Kota had issued the letter dated 08.12.2014, whereby it had been conveyed that it was proposed to appoint the Applicant on the post of Traffic Apprentice on temporary and provisional basis.
3. In particular, it had been mentioned thereby that the Applicant was being appointed subject to the prescribed conditions that were indicated thereunder. These had included several conditions included those related to - liability of termination of the temporary / provisional service at a notice or payment of salary of 14 days (serial no.1) ; passing of the mandatory medical examination as prescribed by the Railways, in case not done already, before being appointed (serial no.3); furnishing of declaration regarding non-working elsewhere at the time of appointment in Railway 4 OA No. 273/2016 service - and if working before, then the certificate of relieving and no-objection from that Establishment, before being considered for appointment in Railway service (serial no.8) ; verification of certificates of educational qualifications, category etc. before appointment (serial no.20) ; self-declaration and attestation by a gazette officer regarding character antecedents (serial no.19 and 21) etc. inter alia.
4. It had also emerged that in pursuance thereof, the Applicant had got himself relieved from his previous Office / Establishment of Allahabad Bank on 15.12.2014 to report to the Office of the DRM Western Central Railway, Kota. Towards fulfillment of prescribed conditions for appointment, the Applicant was subjected to the mandatory medical examination on 02/03.01.2015 - initially by the nominated Medical Officer, who had considered the Applicant 'Unfit' as per A-Two category ; and thereupon by the Medical Board for ascertaining suitability as per A-Two category prescribed for Traffic Apprentice. Eventually, the Applicant was informed vide letter dated 22.04.2015 of the DRM (Establishment)Western 5 OA No. 273/2016 Central Railway, Kota that he was declared as medically 'Unfit' for A-2 category in the Medical Examination, whereas passing of which was mandatory for appointment as Traffic Apprentice.
5. The Applicant had further averred that upon receipt of the said letter dated 22.04.2015, he had submitted an application dated 21.05.2015 to the authorities specifically mentioning therein that both the eyes of the applicant were in normal condition. The Applicant had in support of his contention furnished the certificates upon examination of his eyes by the Junior Specialist (Ophth) Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur and another one from the private Pawn Eye Hospital and Research Center - whereby it was certified that vision of the Applicant is 6/6 and no laser operation had been undergone by him. It was the case of the Applicant that while he had been disqualified on the ground of low vision, he had proper vision ; and that the circular issued by the Respondent on 31.12.2015 that was being applied in his case was issued well after 12.05.2012. i.e. the date of the relevant Centralised Employment Notice - yet that 6 OA No. 273/2016 also had provisions for re-examination by a Second Medical Board. Hence, the Applicant being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22.4.2015 of the Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Department (Establishment) Western Central Railway, Kota and the impugned Physical Fitness Certificate dated 16.6.2015 (sic) ; and further prayed for directions to the Respondents to constitute a fresh Medical Board for assessing the fitness of the Applicant for the post of Traffic Apprentice and declaring him medically fit for appointment on the post of Traffic Apprentice with all consequential benefits.
6. On the other hand, vide their reply the Respondents had denied the contentions of the Applicant, except those that were matters of fact on record. They had further submitted that the appointment of any candidate, inter-alia the Applicant, can only be completed only after meeting the other terms and conditions of the appointment and the same had been conveyed to the Applicant also. In the present case for appointment to the post of Traffic 7 OA No. 273/2016 Apprentice, medical fitness as per medical category A- Two was prescribed as a relevant condition, inter alia. It had also been submitted further that the Applicant was firstly examined on 03.01.2015 by the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent (in charge of OPD), Kota as the nominated railway medical examiner and was found to be 'Unfit' for appointment as Traffic Apprentice on account of not being in A-2 medical category and having substantial visual acuity in both eyes. Thereafter, as per the prescribed procedure, a four-member Medical Board chaired by Chief Medical Superintendent, Kota including the Senior DMO Ophthalmology, Kota as Expert Member had again examined the Applicant on the same date and he was diagnosed to be suffering from both eyes substandard visual acuity ; and thus it had been concluded that he was unfit for A-2 medical category. The Medical Board, after undergoing all the clinical findings and investigation, recommended that Shri Dhanraj Goyal S/o Shri Babu Lal Goyal was 'Unfit' as candidate for Traffic Apprentice in A-2 medical category due to both eyes substandard visual acuity.
8OA No. 273/2016
7. Further, the Respondents had submitted that the procedure for consideration of appeal of non-Gazetted candidates selected for Railway employment - specifically the cases of candidates declared unfit upon medical examination had been laid down previously vide Para 522(I) of IRMM-2000 ; and the same was also clarified vide Policy guidelines dated 05.06.2014 and eventually through the Policy guidelines dated 31.12.2015. The said guidelines on the subject of "Consideration of of appeal of non-Gazetted candidates selected for Railway employment - specifically the cases of candidates declared unfit upon medical examination" dated 31.12.2015 had been presented by the Applicants as well and taken on record.
8. We have gone through the pleadings before us and the related notices and circulars ; and heard the parties. It is firstly seen from the provisions for Medical Fitness Test incorporated in the Centralised Employment Notice dated 12.05.2012 that it was provided thereby that the candidates recommended for appointment will have to pass requisite medical fitness test(s) conducted by the Railways 9 OA No. 273/2016 Administration to ensure that the candidates are medically fit to carry out the duties connected with the post ; and that, Visual Acuity Standard is one of the important criteria of medical fitness of railway staff. It was also noted thereunder inter alia that candidates qualifying in examination(s) for these posts but failing in prescribed medical examination(s) will not in any case be considered for any alternative appointment.
9. Thus, we noted that the provisions related to the medical examination were incorporated in the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012 dated 12.5.2012itself, pursuant to which the Applicant had undergone the selection process for Traffic Apprentice. These had underlined that the candidates recommended for appointment will have to pass requisite medical fitness test(s) conducted by the Railways Administration to ensure that the candidates are medically fit to carry out the duties connected with the post. In the present case, the medical examination by Railway authorities had been conducted for the Applicant and the findings of the same had been relied upon by the Respondents. On the other hand, the 10 OA No. 273/2016 Applicant had sought to supersede those based upon the purported medical certificates purportedly from non-Railway authorities. Moreover, while the medical examination by the Railway authorities was in details and had recorded the related readings / findings, the certificates cited by the Applicant were summary in nature and did not show up to be exhaustive. Such challenge on part of Applicant is thus found to be not in accordance with the provisions related to the medical examination incorporated in the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012 dated 12.5.2012.
10. Further, it was also underlined in the provisions related to the medical examination incorporated in the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012 dated 12.5.2012 that Visual Acuity Standard is one of the important criteria of medical fitness of railway staff. The Applicant had been found by the Medical Board constituted by the Railways, after undergoing all the clinical findings and investigation, to be with both eyes substandard visual acuity ; and thus, 'Unfit' as candidate for Traffic Apprentice in A-2 medical category. We do not deem that for a specifically 11 OA No. 273/2016 emphasized type of disability in the provisions related to the medical examination incorporated in the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012 dated 12.5.2012, there could be any relaxation of the prescribed standards or procedure for medical examination ; which moreover may involve issues regarding traffic operations of the railways and larger public safety implications.
11. We also find that the Applicants as well as the Respondents had cited the Policy guidelines dated 31.12.2015, which itself had mentioned of the previous Policy communication dated 05.06.2014 as well as Para 522(I) of IRMM, 2000 relating to procedure for reconsideration of adverse reports of medical examination of candidates selected for employment in various non-Gazetted posts in Railway services and the procedure for making an appeal and its disposal. While the Applicant had challenged these on account of having been issued after the Centralised Employment Notice No.03/2012 dated 12.5.2012, which guidelines would apply in lieu thereof had not been presented by them. Moreover, it is found that 12 OA No. 273/2016 the process for examination of the Applicant on 02/03.01.2015 and the recording of findings thereof are made in standardized formats. The Certificate of Physical Fitness of the Candidate is numbered as Form No. MED/C-8 ; Annex-6, App-III ; IGRC-R71 M18 B/A and it is specifically mentioned in the title thereof that it was to be used for a candidate medically examined for fitness for appointment to Railways. The procedure for conducting the proceedings and recording of the findings of the review by the Medical Board in cases of adverse finding by the first nominated Medical Examiner were also organized and conducted in a standardized format. that laid down as per the applicable guidelines has been followed rigorously by the nominated Railway Medical Examiner as well as subsequently by the Medical Board constituted in the present case. In the absence of any specific challenge of how these were not as per the then prevalent guidelines, we do not find that such a challenge can be sustained merely on the making of the same.
12. Incidentally, since the Applicant as well as the Respondents had referred to the Policy guidelines 13 OA No. 273/2016 dated 31.12.2015 related to consideration of appeal of candidates declared unfit upon medical examination for Railway employment, we advert to the same for reference. These were find to have inter alia provided that -
"I. Medical Examination : Medical examination of candidates will be done by a Medical officer with adequate experience in doing medical examination who will be specifically nominated by the CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in charge for this purpose.
II. If a candidate has been found to be unfit on grounds of acuity of vision/defective 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 medical Board 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 20 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 for this purpose. ... ...
V. This three member Board will examine the candidate at the earliest after the first medical examination report is put up to the CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the Unit, Division/Sub-division. ... ...14 OA No. 273/2016
VI. This three member Board will write their detailed findings and will either endorse the first examination findings or differ and record their recommendations in the form of speaking orders, based upon which a fit/unfit certificate will he issued by the doctor who examined the candidate at the first instance. This three member Board's decisions, as accepted by the respected CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the Unit/Division/Sub division, will be final and no appeal will be entertained.
VII. Once a decision has been taken at the level of the Divisional/Production Unit In charge and the candidate has been declared fit/unfit by three member Board, no further appeal shall normally lie with any higher authority.
VIII. Consideration of specific cases :-
a) Once the 03 member Board has taken a decision on the grounds of conditions like hypertension, sub-standard vision and defective colour perception, diabetes and the same has been accepted by the respective CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the Unit/Division/Sub-division, any representation/appeal shall be dealt with on the basis of the records and findings of the Committee and the candidate will not be subjected to re- examination.
b) Only in specific and exceptional cases in which there is an objective record of an X-ray finding, ECG record, Echo or a permanent defect/deformity, there can be an appeal in regard to the interpretation of such a finding and such cases can be entertained as an appeal by the CMD. CMD of the Zone may order for re-medical examination of such candidates if he is satisfied that there are genuine grounds for consideration of such an appeal. ... ..."15 OA No. 273/2016
13. It is incidental further that these presently prevalent set of standard / reasonable guidelines for handling of cases of candidates for employment in the Railways who had failed in the related medical examination and further the review examination were also broadly met by the procedure followed by the Respondents. Irrespective, the Applicant had failed to prove that the procedure followed by the Respondents was arbitrary or malafide or that it had suffered from any infirmity and illegality.
14. In the conspectus of the foregoing, and as per the analysis and observations made above, the impugned orders deserve no interference as we do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the Respondents. We thus hold that the Applicants case is not established ; and, therefore, the present Original Application is disallowed being devoid of any merits. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv