Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Rahul Pal vs M/O Railways on 29 July, 2025
1
(Reserved on 04.07.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
This the 29th day of July, 2025
Original Application No. 884 of 2017
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Rahul Pal, aged about 26 years, S/o Govind Prasad Pal, R/o Village Raipur,
Berasia Road, Tehsil Huzur, District - Bhopal (M.P) - 462101.
.......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri A.K. Singh
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through General Manager, West Central Railway,
Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P) - 482001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P)
482001.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Indira Market,
Jabalpur (M.P) - 482001.
4. The Chief Medical Director, West Central Railway, Indira Market,
Jabalpur (M.P) - 482001.
5. The Medical Director, Central Hospital, West Central Railway, Indira
Market, Jabalpur (M.P) 482001. ......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri D.S. Baghel
ANAND 2025.08.01
Page 1 of 6
PRAKASH 16:32:38
DUBEY +05'30'
2
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
Present original application has been directed against the order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure A-16) by which the appeal of the applicant for re-medical examination has been rejected.
2. The applicant, who was qualified in the written examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, was found medically unfit for Aye-one category (Annexure A-5 & A-6). Thereafter, as per the advice of the respondents vide letter dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure A-7), the applicant preferred an appeal dated 14.07.2017 which was rejected vide order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure A-16).
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order and it does not contain any reason. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents did not considered the medical report issued by Gandhi Medical College, Department of Ophthalmology and other eye specialist. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to Railway Board Letter dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure A-17) and submitted that the applicant may be declared as "temporary unfit" instead of declaring complete medically unfit. Learned counsel for the applicant has also cited ANAND 2025.08.01 Page 2 of 6 PRAKASH 16:32:38 DUBEY +05'30' 3 the order of this Tribunal dated 17.08.2018 passed in O.A No. 422/2015 - Sanjay Kumar Dubey Vs. UOI & Ors (Annexure A-18) and submitted that similar issue was involved in that OA which was allowed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA may be allowed and relief may be given to the applicant.
4. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and filed reply stating therein that the applicant after qualifying in written examination held for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot/Technician, was called for medical examination where he was found medically unfit in required category of AYE-One. The applicant preferred an appeal before Competent Authority which has been rejected by impugned order dated 17.08.2017 in appropriate manner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the letter dated 26.04.2017 is not an appointment letter but it was issued informing the applicant to make his appearance for medical examination for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and the Chief Medical Superintendent vide letter dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure A-5) has declared the applicant unfit in prescribed medical cadre Aye One for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that all the relevant documents pertaining to initial medical examination of applicant were called for and scrutinized in detail and it was found that the applicant had ANAND 2025.08.01 Page 3 of 6 PRAKASH 16:32:38 DUBEY +05'30' 4 distant vision 6/9, 6/9 in both eyes and a lenticular opacity in the right eye, therefore, his appeal was rightly rejected by the competent authority.
6. We have heard Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the pleadings and considered the rival submissions.
7. It is not disputed that pursuant to the notification of Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal, the applicant appeared in the written examination for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and he was declared successful. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.04.2017, he was called for medical examination for required medical category of Aye-One. The applicant was duly examined by the Railway Doctor where he was found unfit for required Aye-One for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Thereafter, the applicant preferred as appeal along with a medical certificate dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure A-10) issued by Eye Specialist of Civil Hospital, Bairagarh. The applicant has also produced more medical certificates at Annexure A-14 and A-15 wherein he was declared fit and was found with normal vision.
ANAND 2025.08.01 Page 4 of 6 PRAKASH 16:32:38 DUBEY +05'30' 5
8. It is seen that the applicant had preferred appeal pursuant to the letter dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure A-7) wherein it was provided that the appeal will only be considered when it contains the certificate of specialist from Government / Private doctor in the relevant category for which he was declared unfit. It was also provided in the said letter that such certificate must be supported with a Note that the concerned doctor was aware about the fact that the candidate was earlier declared unfit by the Medical Board. The concerned Private/Govt. Doctor was also to certify that he was well aware about the medical standard of physical fitness fixed by the Railways. From the appeal of the applicant, it is noted that none of the aforesaid supporting documents were filed by the applicant except the medical certificates. It is also noted that a candidate has no right of appeal from a medical board, special or standing, appointed to determine the fitness for the above services. In this regard, para 506 of Indian Railway Medical Manual 2000 is being reproduced below: -
"506. Provision for re-consideration of adverse report: - (1) Candidates are warned that there is no right of appeal from a medical board, special or standing, appointed to determine their fitness for the above services. If, however, Government are satisfied on the evidence produced before them of the possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of the first board, then it is open to Government to allow an appeal to a second board.......
ANAND 2025.08.01 Page 5 of 6 PRAKASH 16:32:38 DUBEY +05'30' 6 (2). If any medical certificate is produced by a candidate as a piece of evidence about the possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of the first board, this certificate will not be taken into consideration unless it contained note by the medical practitioner concerned to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate has already been rejected as 'unfit' for service by a medical board."
9. Thus, from the above provision of the Railways, the applicant was required to produced such certificates of the concerned medical practitioner, which, from the appeal of the applicant, it is evident that no such supporting documents / certificates were produced. Thus, we find no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents.
10. For the forgoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, O.A No. 884/2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
ANAND 2025.08.01
Page 6 of 6
PRAKASH 16:32:38
DUBEY +05'30'