Delhi High Court - Orders
Vinod Kumar vs Uoi And Ors on 27 February, 2023
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17656/2022
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bimal Kumar Berera, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Sr. Panel
Cousnel with Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Govt.
Pleader and Ms. Harithi Kambiri,
Adv. with Mr. Chander Shekhar,
Office Superintendent Railways.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 27.02.2023
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated June 24, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal („Tribunal‟, for short) in Original Application being OA No. 3579/2016, whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed the Review Application No.67/2021, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated October 10,2022, by stating that there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated June 24, 2021.
2. The facts, as noted from the record are that the respondent had issued an advertisement for the post of Group-D in the Northern Railway. The petitioner claimed the status of Physically Handicapped (PH) candidate. He Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:02.03.2023 10:06:15 took part in the written test and was in the list of eligible candidates under the PH category. He was subjected to a medical test with reference to the disability by the concerned Authority in the Railways. After conducting the test, the respondents passed an order declaring him as "Medically Unfit for all the categories". It is thereafter, he had submitted medical certificates dated July 29, 2015 and August 05, 2015 and wanted to be medically tested on the basis of medical certificates. The respondents declined the request. It is in this background, that the aforesaid OA was filed before the Tribunal.
3. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal, as soon as he came to know that Medical authority had rejected him on the ground of medically unfit, he obtained a fresh medical certificate on July 29, 2015 / August 05, 2015, which need to be taken into consideration for granting appointment to the petitioner, as the said certificate depicts the disability of the petitioner at 50%.
4. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was subjected to a medical test after the written test and the clinical parameters of the petitioners for the post did not match with those mentioned in the Medical Certificate. It was also stated that the petitioner did not seek a test by Appellate Medical Board, and on the other hand the petitioner came forward with another medical certificate, which is long after the last date for submission of applications. The Tribunal in paragraphs 6 and 7, has stated as under:-
"6. The applicant, no doubt claimed the status of PH Candidate and took part in the examination on the basis of the qualifications. With the marks obtained by him in the written test, he was otherwise eligible to be considered in PH category. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:02.03.2023 10:06:15 respondents subjected him to the Medical test with reference to the disability certificate submitted by him. In the certificate submitted by him, his disability was shown as 74% with reference to Polio and Scoliosis. In the clinical test, it was found that the disability of the applicant did not match with the parameters mentioned in the disability certificate.
7. In case the applicant was of the view that the test conducted by the authority was not correct, it was open for him to get himself re-examined by the Medical Board. In fact, the manual provides for such a procedure. The applicant, however, has chosen to file two disability certificates, dated 29.07.2015 and
05.08.2015 issued by the different authorities altogether. Firstly, the certificate was filed long after the last date for submission of application and after he was subjected to the physical test on the basis of disability certificate filed by him earlier. Secondly, once the applicant was tested with reference to a particular certificate, he cannot come forward with another set of certificates indicating different reasons."
5. Mr. Bimal Kumar Berera, learned counsel for the petitioner during his submission draws our attention to page 99 of the petition, which is the initial Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Authority, wherein the petitioner has been diagnosed as PPRP (Post Polio Residual Paralysis) with Kyphoscoliosis D.L. Spine, and certified him with 70% disability. The Medical Department of the Railways, which examined the petitioner was of the following view:-
"Unfit as physically handicapped quota due to mismatch between clinical findings and disability certificate submitted by the Candidate."
6. It is thereafter, that the petitioner got himself examined by a Medical Authority situated in Hissar on July 29, 2015 / August 05, 2015 and submitted the second certificate, which states as under:-
"Kyphoscoliosis D.L. Spine at 30% with Spondylitis Pulmonary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:02.03.2023 10:06:15 Dysfunction at 50%.
7. According to Mr. Berera, even the second certificate signifies the disability of the petitioner and his candidature could not have been rejected because the Medical Board found him "Medically Unfit for all the categories". He has also drawn our attention to the appeal made by the petitioner against the first Medical Board, which was rejected on the ground that the same is time barred. Be that as it may, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Berera, for the reason that the petitioner had submitted two different disability certificates giving two different results.
8. In view of the discrepancy found in the medical certificate and the clinical examination of the petitioner, the conclusion of the Medical Board declaring him unfit, cannot be faulted.
9. One of the submissions of Mr. Berera is that the petitioner be sent for fresh medical examination to enable him to get himself re-examined. We are not impressed by the said submission of Mr. Berera. It is quite late in the day for the petitioner to make such a submission, as the recruitment with which we are concerned in this petition, is of the year 2015; seven years have passed since then.
10. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J FEBRUARY 27, 2023/ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:02.03.2023 10:06:15