Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Mohsin Malik vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary ... on 6 December, 2007
ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. Employment Notice was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh on 26.10.2002, inviting response from qualified persons for direct recruitment to the post of Diesel/Electric Assistant Driver. Since the applicant possessed the obligatory qualifications, he had responded. In due course, he had been invited to participate in the written test on 14.10.2004 followed by tests, which were specific for the job. In respect of empanelled candidates, it was also necessary that they undergo medical test. The applicant had reported for such test at the Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Ambala Canttt. The report-dated 15.10.2004, however, did not clear him as it was observed that he did not fully conform to the accepted vision standards.
2. It is evident that the applicant was not expecting such a setback, and, according to him, he had had consultations with private medical practitioners, and on the strength of the certificates received by him, had filed an appeal, as was provided in such instances. Respondents had no objection in entertaining his request, as it could be seen that he was directed to be re-examined at Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi. However, the report was that he was unfit in A-1 category as could be seen from the proceedings dated 07.03.2005. According to the applicant, this might not have been correct or acceptable since he had secured reports from competent medical authorities about his perfect vision. He had appealed to the Railway Board. This time, the Railway Board had decided to get the applicant re-examined by a Medical Board consisting of two eye specialists and one general practitioner at Mumbai. Unfortunately for the applicant, on 25.03.2006, the Board returned the report that he was found unfit for B-2 category. It is in this background that the applicant has come up with this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there has been some amount of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in rejecting the case of the applicant as competent medical authorities had found him fit. Overreaching them, the yardsticks prescribed by the Railway Administration would have been unacceptable as he is otherwise fit. On this issue, employment should not have been denied. He further submits that the latest certificate, which refers to other debilitating conditions, could not have been taken notice of. This is because when certificate dated 07.03.2005 showed him as unfit for A-1 category, the latest certificate has made him even unfit for B-2 category. It is submitted that when the first certificate only refers to certain minor defects, and only that he does not fully conform the accepted vision standards, further certificates had gone to areas, which were not even relevant. Although he has not alleged any malafide on the part of the respondents, according to him, circumstances have conspired against him and it is a case where this Tribunal has to intervene, and ensure that the applicant is subjected to a fair normal test, so as to ensure, as a matter of fact, he is fit for employment as Diesel/Electric Assistant Driver.
4. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Dhawan, however, submits that more than sufficient indulgence has already been shown in favour of the applicant, and, therefore, he will not be justified in making a submission for re-medical examination. As a matter of fact, the process of selection has already been completed and it is only because of the applicant's insistence, the further opportunities were given to him so as to ensure that the claims of persons are not thrown overboard by any chance of arbitrariness. Requirement of above average medical standards was a highly necessary in view of the nature of duties that was expected from a person who was in control of a Diesel/Electric locomotive. However, he did not get a clearance about the normal vision standards, and in any of the medical tests, which were conducted. Therefore, it would not have been possible for this Tribunal to intervene or to compel that his case has to be considered for public employment. The private certificates might have been issued oblivious of the background of the Railway's necessity. Mr. Dhawan points out that in public interest, it is important that in such matters, the decision by the competent authorities taken with the aid of expert bodies is not disturbed, although there might be some amount of individual hardship.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are constrained to agree with the submissions that have been made by Mr. Dhawan. Applicant could not get pass marks in the first medical examination done at Ambala. A second Medical Board was constituted for him and medical experts had examined him at Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi and thereafter he was submitted to examination by two eye specialists and one General Duty Medical Officer of S.A. Grade at Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Western Railway at Mumbai. It cannot, now, therefore, be disputed that there is no basis for the final diagnosis that the applicant was having alternative divergent squint and disabilities and this would have interfered with eyesight. It cannot also be ruled out that by passage of years, the condition is likely to become more aggravated. When the medical tests are prescribed and a candidate fails to attain the standards, suggestion for relaxation could be risky. We find that to the possible extent the applicant's entreaties have been duly taken notice of and adequate opportunities have been given to him, so as to firmly get his standards assessed. When it is found that he was not having the standards, we do not think our interference will be warranted.
6. Resultantly, application is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, already passed are vacated. No order as to costs.