Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amrish Pal Singh S/O Smt. Indira Pal vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 30 August, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1294/2011 Reserved on: 03.05.2013 Pronounced on:30.08.2013 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) Amrish Pal Singh s/o Smt. Indira Pal R/o C-311, Pragati Vihar Hostel, New Delhi 110 003. Applicant (By Advocate: Mrs. S. Janani) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Dy. Secretary (Estt.) Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Chairman, Medical Board, Northern Railway Central Hospital, Besant Lane, New Delhi. 4. U.P.S.C. through Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Rajinder Nischal and Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal) O R D E R By Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A):
The case of the applicant, simply put, is that he is a qualified Civil Engineer with ME (Structural Engineering) who is currently employed as a Deputy Director in the Central Water Commission since the year 2005. He appeared and was declared successful in the written and the viva voce of the Engineering Services Examination 2009. However, the applicant was declared unfit for the IRSE, CES, CWES, CES (Roads) but fit for IRSS (Indian Railways Stores Services) by a Medical Board constituted at the LN Mishra Railway Hospital at Gorakhpur on account of Substandard Visual Acuity which is admittedly a measure of visual acuteness or clearness. The applicant filed an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board which again declared him unfit for all Services other than the IRSS as he was diagnosed a case of Post Traumatic Cataract Right Eye, which is progressive by nature. The applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the successive Medical Boards and, therefore, he has filed this Original Application praying for the following relief(s):
a. Issue an appropriate direction to the respondents to declare him medically fit and offer him appointment in Technical Services on the basis of his results in the Engineering Services Examination 2009;
b. pass such other and further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
2. The applicant has submitted a number of grounds in support of this Original Application starting with violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as the action of the respondents affect his fundamental rights. The report of the medical board declaring him unfit is not tenable in the eyes of law as the report of the second medical board is in clear violation of the procedures prescribed in the Gazette Notification according to which it should have confined itself to checking of visual acuity alone and not entered into other ophthalmological disorders. Instead it has travelled beyond its purview in declaring the applicant unfit while the first medical board has declared him fit. The opinion of the second medical board that the applicant is suffering with post traumatic cataract right eye which is progressive in nature runs counter to the observations of the first medical board, which has raised no such objection. The second medical board should have confined itself only to the examination of visual acuity as the other fitness requirements regarding eyes were cleared by the first medical board. Thereby the second medical board has raised new issues earlier cleared by the first medical board. This contradiction itself creates a doubt upon the validity of the entire process of medical examination.
3. As per the Gazette Notification, a person when suffering from a curable disease can be declared temporarily unfit by the first medical board alone and, therefore, it shall be out of the purview of the second medical board to do so. The second medical board has simply rejected the claim of the applicant without even having stated whether the disease suffered by the applicant is curable or non-curable. In all fairness, the second medical board should have recorded whether it is curable or not by surgical intervention or otherwise. The first medical board did not mention that the disease was progressive in nature while the second medical board has considered it progressive. This would give rise to the question as to how a disease like cataract becomes progressive in nature within a period of five months. The applicant has further challenged the findings stating that any organic disease or a progressive refractive error, which is likely to result in lowering the visual acuity, should be considered as disqualification. However, in the case of the applicant, there is no organic disease on account of biological reasons. The disease, on the other hand, is due to previous trauma suffered by the applicant.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the power of the glasses of the applicant have remained constant over the last 20 years when the applicant started using glasses following the trauma. This has not interfered with the discharge of the duties by the applicant in his employment with his present employer nor is it likely to do so if accepted the IDS. In fact, he has been discharging his duties most efficiently, which are more or less similar in nature, in the Railway Services for which he has cleared the examination. It is the case of the applicant that he had got himself examined more than twice over from different medical institutions including the Safdarjung Hospital and they all have been of the opinion that the defect pointed out would not hinder his performance in service in any way. He is suffering with a curable disease and, therefore, can only be declared temporarily unfit. The object of the medical examination is to secure continuous effective service and to prevent early pension or payment in case of pre-mature death. The learned counsel for the applicant has repeatedly emphasized that a person like the applicant suffering from a curable disease, which does not interfere with the performance, should not be treated as a ground for rejection of his candidature.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, by filing their counter affidavit, have strongly denied the averments made by the applicant in his OA. The Engineering Services Examinations are conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC for short) for recruitment to the engineering services/posts in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Electronics & Telecommunication disciplines for which the Ministry of Railways happened to be the Coordinating Ministry. The Ministry of Railways is also responsible for conduct of the medical examination to determine the eligibility of the finally selected candidates at its various Centres. The applicant was declared medically unfit on account of substandard visual acuity and traumatic cataract in right eye with iridodialysis at 2 Oclock with organized vitreous exudates. However, due to oversight the applicant was only intimated about his substandard visual acuity and not the other problems while conveying him the results of the first medical examination and giving him a chance to appeal for an Appellate Medical Board. On receipt of appeal from the applicant, an Appellate Medical Board was arranged for him on 11.10.2010 at Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi as per his choice. This board declared the applicant fit only for non-technical services viz. Indian Railway Stores Services and Drilling Engineer (Jr.) Gr.A in Geological Survey of India and unfit for technical services in view of the post traumatic cataract in right eye which is progressive in nature. The respondents have further contended that the applicant had secured Rank-18 in the Civil Engineering Discipline and had given the following preferences:-
Indian Railway Service of Engineers Central Engineering Services Assistant Executive Engineer (Q&SC) in Military Engineering Services Gr.A Central Engineering Services (Roads) only in the Civil Engineering Discipline.
6. The respondents have reiterated that the applicant was medically fit only for Civil Engineering posts in IRSS [the post of DG(GSI) being a Mechanical Engineering Post], but having not given preference for IRSS, he could not be considered for the same and was left unallocated.
7. It is an admitted position that the applicant appeared in medical test twice and has been rejected on both the occasions on account of which he cannot be offered any of the technical services. The IRSS is non-technical service where even requirements are below par the other technical services. The applicant would have been otherwise eligible but he has not opted for the same. It was within the rights of the applicant to have preferred an appeal to the appellate medical board for which he has been permitted. The Appellate Medical Board did not find the applicant fit for the technical services on account of his substandard acuity and post traumatic cataract in right eye, which is progressive by nature and on the basis of which his case has been rejected. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly denied that there was any contradiction between the two medical boards as both the medical boards have pointed out to the same visual acuity related disorders being suffered by the applicant which render him unfit for the technical services. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended since the medical fitness is the basic eligibility criteria for appointment in the Railways and the applicant has been declared medically unfit by two medical boards, the question for appointment of the applicant in the Railways does not arise. Therefore, the instant OA is fit to be rejected.
8. We have carefully examined the pleadings of both the parties and the documents submitted by them. We have also considered the oral submissions of the respective counsels. In view of the above, the following issues are raised and need to be decided:-
Whether there is any contradiction in the findings of the medical boards and the advertisement issued? Whether appellate medical board has gone beyond its jurisdiction in providing a new disease whereas it was only required to give finding relating to visual acuity alone? What relief, if any, can be granted to the applicant?
9. In so far as the first issue is concerned, we need to look at the basic advertisement which lays down the requisite parameters for medical examination and other conditions governing the recruitment. Obviously, the findings of the medical boards declaring acuity related deficiencies in the applicant on account of which he cannot be appointed are offensive to the applicant. The requirements relating to eye-sight and the procedure of medical examination have been provided in the Gazette Notification in its para 7, which is reproduced below:-
7. The candidates eye-sight will be tested in accordance with the following rules. The result of each test will be recorded:-
General The candidates eyes will be subjected to a general examination directed to the detection of any disease or abnormality. The candidate will be rejected if he suffers from any morbid conditions of eye, eyelids or contiguous structure of such a sort as to render or are likely at future date to render him unfit for service.
Visual Acuity The examination for determining the acuteness of vision includes two tests one for distant the other for near vision. Each eye will be examined separately.
There shall be no limit for maximum naked eye vision but the naked eye vision of the candidates shall however, be recorded by the Medical Board or other medical authority in every case as it will furnish the basic information in regard to the conditions of the eye. It is apparent from plain reading of the above provision that there is a specific requirement that has been prescribed for a candidate to become eligible for appointment. In the first instance, the applicant is subjected to a general examination and if it is found that he is suffering from any morbid conditions of eye, eyelids or contiguous structure of such a sort as to render or are likely, at future date to, render him unfit for service, he is liable to be declared unfit for service. In relation to visual acuity, he is subjected to two tests one for distant the other for near vision by examining each eye separately for which standards have been prescribed, which reads as under:-
Note (6) Ocular conditions, other than visual acuity:-
(a) Any organic disease or a progressive refractive error, which is likely to result in lowering the visual acuity, should be considered as a disqualification. This Note clearly provided that where a candidate is found to suffer from any organic disease or a progressive refractive error, which is likely to result in lowering the visual acuity, he should be considered as disqualified.
10. The principal idea that we have to understand is that for the performance of duty in technical services, the inbuilt requirement is that eye sight of a candidate ought to have been in good condition. This condition has to be certified by a number of experts sitting together in a medical board. It is also pertinent to mention here that the applicant consequent upon his medical examination by two medical boards has been found to be suffering from visual acuity and post traumatic cataract in right eye, which is progressive by nature, and, therefore, has been declared unfit for technical services.
11. In the first medical examination report in column No.3, it has been recorded as under:-
3. Eyes I. Any Disease Traumatic cataract in right eye with iridodialysis at 2 oclock with organic vitaus exudates ii. Night Blindness Nil Colour vision: Normal Ishihara : Normal EGL 1.3 mm: Normal EGL 13 mm : Normal Field of vision : Full Binocular vision: Present Visual acuity: 6/18, 6/9 with glass Fundus examination: Rt. Eye shows organic vitous exudates in nasal area, Rest with in normal limits.
Strength of glasses spherical Cylindrical axis Distant vision R.E. L.E 6/36 6/36 6/18 6/9
-1.5 D
-1.0 D
-0.5 D
-1.0 D 0 90 0 90 Near Vision R.E. L.E. N/6 N/6 Hypermetropia (Manifest) R.E. L.E. The form of examination is quite exhaustive and it is made to capture all the conditions relating to eyes as also to visual acuity. The findings of the medical board is quite clear and categorical that the applicant suffers from post traumatic cataract in right eye, which is progressive by nature with iridodialysis at 2 Oclock with organized vitreous exudates. The report further mentions in relation to Fundus examination the right eye shows organic vitreous exudates in nasal area. Rest within normal limits Moreover, vision is not normal even with glasses and without glasses it will definitely impair the efficiency of the applicant in performance of his duties as is evident from the medical report. It is to be remarked here that the applicant has repeatedly referred that this result is contrary to the result of the earlier medical examination. However, it has to be clearly adjudicated with the medical examination that was being held as per the physical condition of the applicant including the acuity of eyes as it stood on the date of examination. The earlier result, which may be showing the applicant normal, are of little consequences of medical board which submit its finding on as is where is basis.
12. Now, we come to the report of the second medical examination conducted at Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi by a Board comprising three doctors. This board also declares the applicant unfit for technical services in view of post traumatic cataract in right eye which is progressive in nature. The report further provides as under:-
5. Based upon the findings of the 1st Medical Board (other than the defect pointed out) and on the findings of Appellate Medical (on the defects pointed out by the 1st Medical Board and appealed against) the candidates is fit/unfit as under:
(i) Railway Engineering Services Gr. (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Signal), CES Gr.A, CE & MES Gr.A CWES Gr.A. CES (Roads) Gr. A and MES Gr.A
(ii) AEE P&T Building Gr. A, CPES Gr.A, INAS Gr. A, INSO Gr.A, BRES Gr. A and Post of Engineer. Gr. A (WP & C/Monitoring Organization)
(iii) Assistant Executive Engineer (Group A) in the corps of EME, Ministry of defence of Survey of India.
(iv) IOFS Gr.A
(v) Drilling Engineer (Jr.) Gr. A in G.S.I.
(vi) IRSS Gr.A However, in para 6 of this very report of the Board finds him fit for non-technical service alone and not for the technical services.
13. Comparing the requirements laid and the results of the medical examination, a view observations are definitely on cards that both the examination have recorded defect in vision; both the medical boards have found the applicant unfit for the technical services; in both the examinations, the substance is one and the same that there is acuity related deficiencies with the eyes of the applicant.
14. Here, we take a note of the averments which the respondents have made that due to an inadvertent error, the applicant was only made aware of the substandard visual acuity and not the other problems while conveying the result of the first medical board examination so as to give him a chance to appeal. On perusal of the medical examination report, it is found to be substantiated. Since the respondents have made this submission before this Tribunal, we find that the reports of the first medical board and the second medical board are consistent in respect of their views/opinion. We have also seen that the advertisement contains inbuilt parameters on which the medical examination should be done. We further find that the form of medical examination used by both the medical boards is quite elaborate and there are no apparent contradictions either within themselves or with that of the terms of the advertisement. Hence, we categorically hold that there is no contradiction between the findings of the medical boards and the advertisement.
15. In so far as the second issue is concerned, a part of it has already been discussed while dealing with issue no.1. The second medical board was held on the basis of an appeal filed by the applicant against the findings of the first medical board. What was there before the second medical board was the result of the first medical board, which had admittedly not been communicated to the applicant in its entirety. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the general impression of the second medical board about the eye condition of the applicant was on different parameters. We fail to appreciate the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant that the second medical board has exceeded its jurisdiction. The second medical board, being the appellate medical board, has the jurisdiction to see and to satisfy the findings of the first medical board on the basis of their own reports or otherwise. Being an Appellate Medical Board, undoubtedly the second medical board is in continuation of the first one. However, it also has the responsibility to maintain the correctness of the findings and to ensure that the candidate being cleared qualifies to the medical parameters prescribed. Even where the first medical board misses something, the second medical board would be within its competence to point the same out or else it shall be failing in its duties. We do not find the second medical board making any abrupt departure from the findings of the first medical board as admitted by the respondents earlier that the entire report of the first medical board had not been communicated to the applicant. This might have been the fact that has given rise to misunderstanding. However, in deciding this issue, we are not guided by the technical terminologies. It suffices to say that in so far as the basic issues are concerned, the fact remains that there are acuity related deficiencies in the eye sight of the applicant and findings of both the medical boards have confirmed the same. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in negative i.e. against the applicant.
16. In so far as the third issue is concerned, we have already decided first and second issue against the applicant. However, during the course of hearing, when we enquired from the learned counsel for the applicant that whether the applicant is prepared to take IRSS under the Railways, her answer was No. She further added that the applicant has got good adjustment and is well settled in the Central Water Commission where he has rendered certain number of years of service, hence he is not interested in accepted the IRSS under the Railways.
17. We fully agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Railways, being a sensitive organization, is responsible for the lives of public at large and passengers in particular, and it cannot take chance to play with the lives of the railway travelers by offering appointment to the applicant who is suffering with medical deficiencies as declared by both the medical boards. We are in concurrence with the learned counsel for the respondents that the railway would like to appoint candidates, who are not only technically equipped but also medically fit and, therefore, the respondents are right in not offering appointment to the applicant in technical service as he does not qualify to the medical standards prescribed.
18. In view of our above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the instant OA deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. We order accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/