Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Prashanth R R vs South Western Railway on 31 July, 2023
1
OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00141/2021
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Prasanth R.R,
S/o Raghunathaiah Setty R.A,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.761,
Ananya, 50 feet Road,
3rd Block, 3rd Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore -560085. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri B.K. Narendra Babu)
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Ministry of Railway,
Represented by its Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board,
No.18, Miller's Road,
Bangalore-560 046.
2. Chief Medical Director,
South Western Railway,
Medical Department,
Old GM's Office,
Club Road,
Keshwapur,
Hubli -580 023. ....Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
2
OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the orders passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure A-1 dated 18.8.2020, vide which his appeal for a re-medical examination has not been considered.
b) To direct the respondents authorities to appoint the applicant as Junior Engineer in the respondent No: 1 Railways.
c) Pass such other order or relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant applied for the post of Junior Engineer through online registration. The applicant passed the examination conducted by Respondent No.1 and was short listed vide Roll No.143814190241001 for document verification and medical examination. The applicant appeared for document verification and also medical examination vide E-call letter for document verification and medical examination.
b) The applicant received E-mail on 01.01.2020 informing the applicant, as under:3
OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench "Based on the Medical Examination conducted by Railway Hospital, Hubli, you were found 'unfit' for all you opted post(s) due to following reasons:
'Unfit in AYE Three (A-3), BEE ONE (B-1), CEY ONE (C-1) due to defective Distant Vision with borderline Ketatoconus in right eye and left eye is compatible with Ketatoconus whose naked eye distant vision is 6/9, 6/36 respectively and corrected eye vision is 6/12, 6/18 with power of glasses-1.75 and 2.50 respectively. Hence, you are not eligible for empanelment to any of your opted posts against CEN 03/2018.
Further it is to be indicated that, your unfit for all category of post(s) was reviewed by the Medical Board consisting of three railway doctors and the same has been confirmed.
In case you wish to appeal against your Medical unfit decided by the Medical Board, you have to submit your appeal within 30 days i.e. on or before 07.2.2020 duly following the procedure given below:
Procedure for Appeal by the Medically UNFIT candidates. The appeal shall be entertained from candidates only if it comply with the following:-
An appeal letter duly indicating the candidate Name, Roll number, Hospital name and Medical examination date addressed to Chief 4 OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Medical Director, South Western Railway, Hubli should be sent to Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore-560046 on or before 07-02-2020.
Along with appeal letter, the candidate should produce a medical certificate in the attached prescribed format (Proforma A) from a Government/Private Doctor of the specialty/specialties in which the candidate has been found unfit.
Such certificate from the specialist doctor should contain a note that the Government/Private specialist is fully aware of the physical and visual standards set by the Railways for the particular medical category, and that he is aware of the fact that the candidate has already been declared unfit according to these standards during medical examination conducted by an appropriate medical board. The certificate should bear the photograph and mark of identification of the candidates duly attested by such a Government/private medical issuing authority duly mentioning its MCI/State registration number.
Candidates are required to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) through Demand Draft payable in favour of Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore.
Where, Principal Chief Medical Doctor (PCMD) is of the opinion that there should be re-examination of the case of appeal, he may nominate a medical board to re-examine the candidate. The decision 5 OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench of PCMD, South Western Railway on the appeal preferred by the candidates will be final and binding and the same shall be communicated to them by RRB Bangalore.
In case, after appeal, the medical fitness changes from unfit to fit, the amount of Rs 1000/- paid by candidate through DD will be Refunded to the candidate. In all other cases, the DD amount will be forfeited ad the candidates will not have any claim on the same. After this appeal no further chance will be given for medical examination."
c) Accordingly, the applicant submitted appeal/request on 22.01.2020 along with a DD for Rs. 1,000/- along with Topography test report of both the eyes for the past three years from Dr. K.H. Srinivas, Assistant Professor of Opthalmology, Regional Institute of Opthalmology, Minto Opthalmic Hospital, Bangalore, and Dr. A. Nagesh, Retina Institute of Karnataka, Bangalore.
d) Subsequently, the applicant received another email dated 15.09.2020 vide which a speaking order dated 18.8.2020 was enclosed. As per this speaking order, the appeal of the applicant for re-medical examination was not considered and not agreed to.
e) The applicant submits that the 2nd respondent, in his speaking order, has given his findings on the basis of literature, and not on the patient condition and passed speaking orders as per Annexure 'A' without a re-medical examination as requested for by the applicant. 6
OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The respondent submits that on evaluation, the applicant was found to be having borderline Keratoconus in right eye and left eye is compatible with Keratoconus which is a progressive eye condition and the applicant was made unfit in AYE-THREE, BEE-ONE and CEY-
ONE.
b) After being declared unfit, the first respondent sent a mail advising the applicant to submit an appeal for re-medical examination for the possible error of judgement by the First Medical Examining Authority along with medical certificate in the proforma enclosed. Accordingly, the applicant submitted request letter dated 22.10.2020 with medical certificates dated 17.02.2020 from Dr. Srinivas of Minto Ophthalmic Hospital, Bangalore and from Dr. Nagesh A, Retina Institute of Karnataka, Bangalore.
c) The first respondent forwarded the request letter of appeal with medical certificates of the applicant to Chief Medical Department/Hubli.
d) It is not true to state that the findings of the second respondent are based on the literature. The medical certificates submitted by the candidate along with his appeal states that the applicant has stable keratoconus. But on evaluation, the applicant was found to have defective distant vision with keratoconus left eye and borderline keratoconus in right eye. Since keratoconus is a progressive eye condition, the applicant 7 OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench was put up for evaluation by three member committee with Ophthalmologist as specialist member and the committee on evaluation found that the applicant has best corrected distant vision of 6/12 right eye and 6/18 left eye and has keratoconus both eyes and also Keratoconus is a progressive condition which may eventually lead to impairment of vision. The medical committee unanimously recommended that applicant was unfit in all medical categories.
e) The Eye specialists have given a report of stable keratoconus in comparison to previous evaluation. It implies, compared to previous evaluation, his condition has not progressed. But as mentioned, keratoconus progresses up to age of 40 years, and candidate will need frequent evaluation till he attains 40 years age to say whether his eye condition has progressed or not.
f) The respondent submits that the candidate's appeal has been evaluated but because of reasons enumerated in speaking order, re-examination is not considered. Keratoconus is a progressive condition as explained in paras above.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. In the present case, the applicant had initially been evaluated medically once. Based on the first medical examination conducted by the Railway Hospital, he was found unfit on account of having "borderline keratoconus 8 OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench in right eye and left eye is compatible with Keratoconus which is progressive eye condition."
6. The applicant had been informed that in case the applicant is found medically unfit, he can file an appeal within 30 days. It is also mentioned in the email, that in case where Principal Chief Medical Doctor is of the opinion that there should be re-examination in the case of appeal, he may nominate a medical board to re-examine the candidate.
7. However, a perusal of the speaking order dated 18.2.2020 indicates that the Additional Chief Medical Director (for Principal Chief Medical Director) has considered the certificates submitted by the applicant, as well as the report of the evaluation committee, and has concluded that "the literature states that in spite of treatment procedures, Keratoconus may progress". The appeal for re-medical examination made by the applicant has been rejected on the ground of what is stated in the available literature that the medical condition of the applicant may progress.
8. It is apparent from the speaking order that no re-medical examination has been conducted, as appealed for by the candidate. The conclusion has been made not to have a re-medical examination on the basis of the first medical examination report as well as on the available literature relating to this condition. The Principal Chief Medical Director has concluded that there is no need for a re-medical examination. On the other hand, the medical examination report submitted by two Ophthalmologists engaged by the candidate, have stated in their report, that the candidate has "stable Kerotoconus".
9
OA.No.170/141/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
9. Keeping in view the above facts in this case, it does not appear to be justified for the Principal Chief Medical Director to come to a conclusion relying only on the available literature and to deny the benefit of a re-medical examination of the applicant by a medical board consisting of three eye specialists.
10. Accordingly, keeping the above facts in view, Annexure -A is set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to subject the applicant to a re-medical examination by a Medical Board consisting of three ophthalmologists. The opinion of this Medical Board shall be considered by the competent authority accordingly.
12. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
13. The OA is disposed of with the above directions. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/