Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Nanadha Gopal vs M/O Railways on 30 January, 2025
1 of 11 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH O.A. No.310/00395 of 2023 DATED THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A) M. Nandha Gopal, S/o Murugesan, No. 619. Arunthathiyar Street.
Perungalathur Village.
Arakkonam Taluk.
Vellore District-631003.
........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy for M/s. M. Sarfudeen Ali Ahamed) Vs.
1. The Union of India, Rep by The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell.
5, Dr. PV. Cherian Crescent Road.
Egmore, Chennai -600 008;
2. The Principal Chief Medical Director, IV Floor, Moore Market Complex, Southern Railway, Chennai 600.003. ........... Respondents (Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC) 2 of 11 ORAL OR DER (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) Applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:-
"i) To call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Impugned order Letter No. RRC/353/MANo.445/2021 & OA No. 717/2022 dated 04.11.2022 and set aside the same and consequently allow the applicant to reassess him as per the Applicant's requisition letter dated 29.07.2019 and give "FIT"
Medical.
ii) To pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant had applied for the posts in Level 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix against CEN 0202/2018 to ACMS/HU/CMS/MAS on 24.02.2018. The applicant is a disabled person with 40% disability and his Registration No is 1880553475. As the 1 st respondent directed him to appear for medical examination in connection with recruitment to the said post, the applicant appeared for the medical examination on 24.4.2018. On 15.07.2019, the 1st respondent sent him a letter stating that as per the verification of original certificates on 25.04.2019, and as per the Medical Examination conducted and report issued by Medical Authority vide ACMS/HU/CMS/MAS @ MS Chennai (Chennai Egmore), he was declared as "Unfit".
3 of 11
3. The applicant submits that on receipt of the said letter from 1 st Respondent, he sent a representation dated 29.07.2019 to the 2 nd respondent enclosing therewith two Certificates, one dated 07.03.2017 issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Tamil Nadu declaring the applicant to have 40% permanent disability and another disabilities (PWD) certificate dated 18.05.2019 issued by three Assistant Civil Surgeons, Arakkonam certifying him to be "partially deaf" with 46% disability which is "not likely to improve", along with DD for Rs.1000/- and requested the Respondents to reassess him and take him as "FIT" for disabled posts. However, the respondents neither responded to his letter nor took any action for issuing "FIT" Certificate to him.
4. The applicant further submits that the service rules do not provide for any appeal or remedy and there was no response from the respondents to his repeated requests. Hence, he filed O.A.No.717 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to reassess him as per his requisition letter dated 29.07.2019 and give "FIT" Medical. By order dated 25.08.2022, this Hon'ble Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order on the representation of the applicant dated 29.07.2019 within the stipulated period of one month. However, the respondent, without even considering the representation of the applicant in accordance with law, has rejected his representation solely on ground that 4 of 11 the period of filing Appeal has already lapsed and the appeal cannot be entertained as against the medical examination.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the representation given by the applicant along with DD of Rs.1000/- ought to have been treated as an appeal and dealt with by the respondents as per the Railway Board instructions. However, the 1st respondent failed to follow the instructions properly and mechanically rejected his representation and passed the impugned order vide No.RRC/353/MA No.445/ 2021 & OANo.717/2022 dated 04.11.2022. The said order is under challenge in this O.A. and prayed for granting the relief prayed for.
6. In the reply statement, the respondents have contended that the recruitment process was initiated by the Railway Recruitment Boards, Ministry of Railways and a Centralized Employment Notification (CEN) No.02/2018 for recruitment to various posts in Level 1 of 7 th CPC pay matrix was published on 10.02.2018 inviting applications from open market to fill up 62,907 vacancies in various units of Indian Railways and 2,979 vacancies were notified for Southern Railway. The recruitment process consisted of Computer Based Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Document Verification & Medical Examination. In response to this notification, 12,21,854 applications were received and 10,84,153 applications were 5 of 11 completed. The Computer Based Test (CBT) was conducted between September 2018 and December 2018 in which 6,04,540 candidates attended CBT and 8941 candidates qualified in CBT. 8941 candidates were called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and 7144 candidates attended PET and 3857 candidates qualified in PET. Among them, based on the performance on merit in CBT, 3077 were called for Document Verification. After completion of Medical Examination, 2911 candidates were recommended for appointment.
7. It is further stated that the applicant had applied against Centralize Employment Notification of CEN No.02/2018. In his online application, the applicant had stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and Persons with Disabilities (PWD) / Hearing Impairment (Hard of Hearing) with 40% disability. Hence the applicant was treated as a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) candidate. The applicant had qualified in the CBT and was called for Document Verification on 25.04.2019. As per Note to Para No.4.2 of the notification, Persons with Disabilities specified in Para 11.0 are exempted from appearing for PET. However, such candidates will have to pass the medical examination prescribed for Persons with Disabilities. During the Document Verification on 25.04.2019, the applicant submitted his Disability Certificate with Hearing Impairment with 40% Disability issued by Dr. P.S. Tanveer Ahmed, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vaniymbadi-635 751 (as per Annexure A1). After completion of Document Verification, the applicant was sent to 6 of 11 ACMS/HU/CMS/MAS@MS (Chennai Egmore) for Medical Examination. After completion of Medical Examination, the applicant had been declared "Unfit" by the Medical Authorities of Southern Railway. Therefore, the applicant was not recommended for empanelment. The Railway Recruitment Cell, Chennai vide Letter No. RRC/CEN 02/2018 dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure A4) informed the applicant that he had been declared as "Unfit". Therefore, it was submitted that this O.A. lacks merit and prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Kishore Kumar drew our attention to Para No. VI of Advance Correction Slip to Para 522 (1) of IRMM, 2000 in the Railway Board's letter No.2014/H/5/8 (Policy) dated 07.07.2017 (at Annexure R2) which provides as under:-
"VI. If the candidate wants to appeal against the decision of the committee, he should submit the same to CMD of the zone within a period of one month (from the date of receipt of decision from Personnel Department) with due justification routed through concerned Personnel Department of the Zone. Such an appeal shall be entertained, only if, the candidate produces a certificate from a Government/private doctor of the speciality/specialities in which the candidate has been found unfit. Such a certificate should contain a note that the Government/Private specialist is fully aware of the physical & visual standards set by the Railways for the particular medical 7 of 11 category, and that he is aware of the fact that the candidate has already been declared unfit according to those standards during medical examination conducted by an appropriate Medical Board comprising of three senior railway doctors appointed by the Government in this regard. The certificates should bear the photograph and mark of identification of the candidates duly attested by such a Government/Private Issuing Authority. Such an issuing authority shall also clearly mention its MCI/State registration number.".
9. Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the applicant's representation dated 29.07.2019 has not been received by the 2 nd respondent, the 2nd Respondent could not take any action. Thereafter, the applicant filed M.A.No.445/2021 in OA No.717/2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal to direct the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 29.07.2019 within a stipulated time. Vide order dated 25.08.2022, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 29.07.2019 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order dated 25.08.2022 was received by the 1st Respondent only on 12.09.2022. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the applicant's representation dated 29.07.2019 had been disposed of by the 1st Respondent vide Letter dated 04.11.2022 based on applicant's representation dated 29.07.2019 available as Annexure A5 in MA No.445/2021 in O.A. No.717/2022 and the same is 8 of 11 challenged by the applicant in this O.A.which has no merit and prayed dismissal of OA.
10. We have considered the submissions made by both the counsels and perused the records.
11. It is observed that vide letter dated 15/07/2019 (Annexure A4), the first respondent had informed the applicant that he was declared unfit by the medical authority who conducted the medical examination. On receiving the said communication, the applicant gave a representation dated 29/07/2019 (Annexure A-
5) requesting for medical re-examination and had enclosed therewith DD No.435752 dated 29/07/2019 for Rs.1000/- and copies of two medical certificates issued to him declaring him to have permanent disability. However, the respondents claim that they have not received the said representation dated 29/07/2019 and therefore, no action could be taken by them.
12. In view of the fact that there was no response to his representation from respondents, the applicant had approached this Tribunal for direction to consider his representation. Though this Tribunal had given direction to the respondents vide order dated 25/08/2022 directing them to consider the said representation and pass a 9 of 11 reasoned and speaking order, the respondents, without considering the same on merit, rejected it on the grounds of delay.
13. It is observed that there is no uniformity in the opinion given by the medical authorities with respect to the disability of the applicant. While the applicant states that two medical certificates have been issued to him declaring him to have permanent disability under the category of hard of hearing, the medical authority who conducted medical examination of the applicant have declared him unfit for the disabled posts. No reasons are forthcoming for such decision and the respondents have not produced medical examination report before this Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the request of the applicant and given him another opportunity for medical re-examination. Instead, the representation of the applicant is rejected solely on the grounds of delay.
14. The applicant has specifically contended in this O.A. that there were no rules providing for appeal and therefore, he had submitted his representation dated 29/07/2019 which ought to have been taken as an appeal. The respondents rely on Annexure R-2 which is an internal letter of Railway Board addressed to all General Managers of Indian railways informing them on modalities for consideration of appeal of non-Gazetted candidates selected for railway employment and declared 10 of 11 unfit upon medical examination. In para VI of the Advance correction slip to para 522 of IRMM, 2000 annexed to the said letter, it is stated that if the candidate wants to appeal against the decision of the committee, he should submit the same to CMD of the zone within a period of one month (from the date of receipt of decision from personnel department). When such document is not available in the public domain, the respondent ought to have informed the applicant of the provisions available for appeal and the time period for filing such appeal in their communication dated 15/07/2019 (Annexure A4) sent to the applicant.
15. The direction given by this Tribunal in O.A. No.717/2022 to the respondents was to consider the representation dated 29/07/2019 given by the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. Instead of considering applicant's representation on merit and re-assessing him for medical re-examination, the respondents have rejected the same solely on the grounds of delay. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with the direction given by this Tribunal and therefore, the same is untenable and liable to be set aside. Medical re-examination of the applicant would have shown whether he is fit for the disabled posts in question or not.
11 of 11
16. In view of the foregoing observations, O.A. is allowed. The order dated 04/11/2022 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reassess the applicant by conducting medical re-examination and take such steps as may necessary in this behalf within a period of three months and take further necessary action as per the report of his medical fitness. No order as to cost.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
asvs. 30.01.2025