Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Aishwaraya G vs Railway Recruitment Board on 29 January, 2026
1 OA/310/01434/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01434/2025
Dated this the 29th day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)
Aishwarya G,
D/o Gnanaprakasam,
No.242, Gokale Street,
Ram Nagar,
Coimbatore. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. D. Anand Raja
Vs.
Union of India
rep by The Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board,
Dr P. V. Cherian Cresent Salai,
Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondent
By Advocate Ms. P. J. Anitha
2 OA/310/01434/2025
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. L. Srivastava, Member (A) The applicant has filed the OA for a direction to the respondent to consider the applicant's candidature by re-conducting the medical test as she has been found eligible and possess requisite qualifications having successfully cleared the examination for selection to the post of Senior Clerk cum Typist/Junior Account Assistant Commercial Typist/Senior Commercial Clerk cum Ticker Collector and thus render justice.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The applicant appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent for recruitment to Undergraduate and Graduate level posts under the HI (HH)/PwD quota of NTPC. The examination for the said posts was held on 15.06.2022. The applicant, being a qualified graduate, an OBC candidate, and a person with disability having 89% disability, appeared for the examination under Roll No. 181194180697714. The applicant submits that, as per the respondent's letter, dated 18.11.2022, she was provisionally shortlisted for verification of certificates, genuineness of candidature, and medical examination. She further submits that on 07.12.2022, pursuant to the respondent's communication and being found eligible for the posts of Senior Clerk-cum-Typist/Junior Account Assistant-cum-Commercial
3 OA/310/01434/2025 Typist/Senior Commercial Clerk-cum-Ticket Collector, she underwent a medical examination. She was also directed to undergo an eye examination at Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital, and the result was found to be satisfactory for the post applied for. Thereafter, the applicant was again directed to undergo another round of medical examination at the Railway Hospital, Perambur. The said medical examination was conducted on 19.12.2022, and the doctors certified that the applicant was medically fit. However, the respondent has failed and is reluctant to furnish the results of the second medical examination conducted at the Railway Hospital. The applicant possesses the requisite qualifications and was successful in the examination. Despite this, the respondent deliberately rejected her candidature, as published on the official website on 22.02.2023. The applicant made a representation, dated 14.10.2024 requesting a re-medical examination; however, the respondents have not considered the said representation. Hence, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
3. When the matter was taken up for admission, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possessed all the requisite qualifications for the notified posts and, upon successfully clearing the examination, was shortlisted for document verification and medical 4 OA/310/01434/2025 examination. However, the respondents declared the applicant medically unfit, despite medical reports from other hospitals certifying her fitness. It was further submitted that the applicant, being an OBC and PwD candidate with 89% disability, had satisfied all eligibility criteria and, having been shortlisted after clearing the computer-based test, the rejection of her candidature on medical grounds is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that sufficient medical certificates issued by qualified medical professionals and hospitals authenticated the applicant's medical fitness. Despite the same, the respondents subjected the applicant to another round of medical examination and subsequently rejected her candidature. The reasons for rejection and copies of the medical reports were not furnished to the applicant, compelling her to submit further representations and request for a re-medical examination. The inaction of the respondents in redressing the applicant's grievance is against the principles of equity, fairness, and justice. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for grant of the reliefs sought in the present OA.
5 OA/310/01434/2025
5. Upon notice, the respondents filed a reply statement. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the same, submitted that the applicant was thoroughly examined by a three-member Medical Committee, which diagnosed her as having "Severe sensorineural hearing loss (binaural hearing disability of 77.33%) in both ears and compound myopic astigmatism in the right eye." In view of the said findings, the applicant was declared "UNFIT for PwBD disability HI (HH) category in Indian Railway Services" as per IRMM 2000, Chapter V, Medical Examination, Para 503(C), vide proceedings dated 27.12.2022.
6. It was further submitted that, upon appeal by the applicant seeking re-medical examination, a three-member Ophthalmic Medical Board conducted a re-medical examination on 17.07.2023 and recommended that the applicant was "UNFIT under PwBD HI (HH) quota in Indian Railways," as she was found to be suffering from peripheral retinal degeneration in both eyes with retinal holes, for which barrage laser treatment had been performed. The condition was found to be a progressive eye disease. Accordingly, the applicant was finally declared "UNFIT for appointment" by the competent Railway Medical Authority.
6 OA/310/01434/2025
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that medical examination is conducted to ensure continuous effective service and long- term fitness of candidates. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
9. It is evident from the records that the applicant applied for various posts/categories under CEN No. 01/2019 as a Person with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), declaring 89% disability, with the nature of disability being "HI (HH) - Hearing Impairment (Hard of Hearing)," as indicated in the online application submitted by her. Based on the marks secured by the applicant in the 2nd Stage Computer Based Test (CBT), she was provisionally shortlisted for Document Verification for Pay Level-5 posts, namely Senior Clerk-cum-Typist and Junior Accounts Assistant-cum- Typist (ICF/SR), as well as Senior Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk.
10. Subsequent to document verification, the applicant was directed to appear for medical examination at the Southern Railway Headquarters 7 OA/310/01434/2025 Hospital, Perambur, Chennai, on 08.12.2022 for assessment under the PwBD H1 (HH) category. During the initial medical examination, the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer examined the applicant and referred her for an ophthalmic opinion. Upon examination, the Medical Officer opined that the applicant was suffering from pathological myopia in both eyes with a progressive eye disease and, accordingly, found her unfit from an ophthalmological perspective.
11. It is further seen from the records that, pursuant to the applicant's appeal seeking re-examination, she was re-examined by a three-member Medical Committee comprising the Chief Orthopaedic Surgeon and the Additional Chief Health Director (Ophthalmology), Southern Railway Headquarters Hospital, Perambur, Chennai. The applicant was thoroughly examined by the expert medical board and was diagnosed with "severe sensorineural hearing loss in both ears, compound myopic astigmatism in the right eye, and post-LASIK status in both eyes. Retinal evaluation revealed peripheral retinal degeneration with retinal holes in both eyes, which is a progressive eye disorder." In view of the above findings, the Medical Committee declared the applicant "UNFIT for PwBD disability category H1 (HH) for appointment in Indian Railway Services."
8 OA/310/01434/2025
12. From the records, it is evident that two Medical Boards have unanimously concluded that the applicant is medically unfit. It is also noted that a similar issue arose before the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 306 of 2023, which was dismissed by order dated 05.07.2023. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:
"8. In the context of the Chief Medical Superintendent recommending the applicant in OA No. 437/2021 as unfit for A-1 and B-1 medical categories and the request made by the applicant therein, having not yielded any results for the re- examination, Jabalpur Bench directed the respondents therein to constitute a Medical Board and re-examine the applicant therein. Such exercise has already been done in the present case. Medical Board has re-examined the applicant and an opinion is given. Conducting further re-examination is not warranted. No relaxation could be made with the medical standard prescribed for the post of Station Master. Safety of the passengers being paramount, in public interest no compromise could be made with the medical standards prescribed in the IRMM, the same should be strictly adhered to.
9 For the reasons aforesaid, OA lacks merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. No order as to costs."
13. We also found similar issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Neeraj Verma Vs Union of India in WP No.2846/2025(S-CAT) and the Hon'ble Court vide its judgment, dated 11.06.2025 held as follows:
"7. This Court would not go behind the report submitted by the Appellate Medical Board as well as DMC. More so, this Court would not possess any expertise to go into the medical examination conducted by the Medical Board as well as the Appellate Medical Board. In the absence of any malafide, this Court shall have to accept the expert opinion.
9 OA/310/01434/2025
8. The selection is to the post of Station Master and Station Master shall possess vision as required by the Railways. The medical standards fixed by the Recruiting Authority cannot be lowered or tinkered by any Court. Unless one is medically fit to hold a particular post, he cannot, as a matter of right claim that post.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected."
14. In the above circumstance, and on the findings of the decisions cited supra, we can come to a conclusion that conducting further re- examination is not warranted since two Medical Boards unanimously declared the applicant as unfit. Further, medical standards fixed by the Recruitment Authority cannot be lowered or tinkered by any Court. Unless a person is medically fit to hold a particular post, he cannot claim the post as a matter of right.
15. For the reasons recorded above, there is lack of merit in the present OA, and accordingly the OA is dismissed at the admission stage.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
29.01.2026
mas
Digitally signed
MA by M A SUNDAR
Date:
SUNDAR 2026.02.12
16:28:36 +05'30'