Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Vineet Prakash vs East Central Railway on 12 July, 2023
-1- OA/050/00572/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00572/2021
With
MA/050/00062/2022
Reserved on: 01.05.2023
Pronounced on: 12.07.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. M.C. VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUN
SUNIL
IL KUMAR SINHA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Vineet Prakash, aged about 35 years (Male), son of Shri Vinay Sharma, Resident
of B/528, Sonalika Cooperative Colony, Ranipur ((Paijaba), PO- Jhauganj, PS--
Bypass, District
District- Patna-800008.
.... Applicant.
By- Applicant
Applicant-In-Person
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India,, Ministry of Railway through its Secretary, Rail
Bhawan, 256-A, A, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Railway Recruitment Board, Mahendrughat, Patna through its
Chairman, Patna-800004.
3. The Principal Chief Medical Director, East Central Railway, Hajipur, PO-
PO-
Digghi Kala, PS- Hajipur (Town), District-
District Vaishali-844101.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central
Cen Railway, Sonepur, PO & PS--
Sonepur, District- Saran-841101.
.... Respondents.
By Advocate: - Mr. Ravindra Rai
ORDER
Per S.K. Sinha, A.M:- Applicant is in second round of litigation challenging the opinion of Railway Medical Board that he was unfit for A- 2 category required for the post of Goods Guard. Applicant has prayed for following reliefs in the OA:
OA:--
-2- OA/050/00572/2021
"(i) For quashing the Order dated 22.07.2021, issued from the Office
of Divisional Railwayay Manager/Karmik/Sonepur, East Central Railway, Sonepur under the signature of Asstt. Karmik Officer-II/Son Officer II/Son Kriti MRP/KA/Sonepur whereby and whereunder the Applicant has been declared unfit for the post of Goods Guard in Medical Category A-2A 2 (Aye two) ( in view of finding and I.R.M.M. Guideline given by the Orthopedic Medical Board, Patna) in the following facts and circumstances of the case
(ii) For any other relief or reliefs, the applicant may be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Applicant's case briefly, is that possessing the requisite educational qualification he had applied for the posts of Traffic Apprentice, Goods Guard and Assistant Station Master in response to the Railway Recruitment Board advertisement CEN 03/2015 for graduate raduate level non-technical technical popular category posts published on 26.12.2015. Based on his performance in the computer based test testss and verification of the relevant documents/certificates by RRB, he was offered letter of appointment for the post of Goods Guard by DRM Danapur and directed to appear in the office on 18.03.2019. Att DRM office, he was subjected to detailed medical test conducted at different railway hospitals lasting for several days days. Applicant has alleged that during the medical test he was advised to pay illegal gratification to obtain medical fitness certificate which he ignored. On 29.05.2019, he was informed that he was not found fit for A A-2 2 Category in the medical test and th that at he may appeal appea for re-medical medical examination within one month with a demand draft of Rs 1000/ 1000/- and a medical certificate of fitness for A-2 A category from any private/ government medical expert. On the appeal, he was subjected to
-3- OA/050/00572/2021 re-medical medical examinatio examination n before the Principal Chief Medical Director, Hajipur on 13.02.2020 in which he was again declared medically unfit for A2 category on the ground that he had "bony bony abnormality in left knees and ankles with restricted flexion of knees and dorsiflexion of ankles". Subsequently, his selection ction for the post of Goods Guard was also cancelled. The applicant's request to consider him for some other post in Railways was also not acceded to by the GM, ECR.
2.1 Applicant then approached this Tribunal in OA No. 346 of 2020 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents for re-- medical examination of the applicant by a Medical Board with a reference to duty and nature of job of Goods Guard and whether the applicant was fit to discharge the duty of Goods Guard. A Medical Board (Orthopedic) examined the applicant on 13.07.2021 and again declared him unfit for Goods Guard in A A-2 2 medical category.
Applicant later got himself examined by medical experts at PMCH and LNJPN Orthopedic Hospital, Patna who opined that applicant was not medically unfit though he suffered from some hereditary disorder disorder.
2.2 In this OA, applicant pplicant has pleaded that the orthopedic problem mentioned by the Medical Board was not such which would would hamper in the work of a Goods Guard and that the opinion given by Medical
-4- OA/050/00572/2021 Board was either irrelevant or not sufficient to declare him unfit for the post of Goods Guard.
3. Contesting the maintainability of OA, respondents filed written statement maintaining that Goods Guard is a safety category post for which there can be no compromise on medical fitness. That in compliance of the Tribunal's direction in OA No. 346/2020, the respondents had constituted aan n orthopedic Medical Board comprising three Railway doctors other other than those who had conducted the medical examination earl earlier. That the Medical Board so constituted examined the applicant on 13.07.2022 at Central Super Specialty Hospital, Patna and unanimously held that applicant was unfit for the post of Goods Guard rd in medical category A-2.
A That the applicant was informed about the finding of the medical board vide letter dated 22.07.2021 22.07.2021.
3.1 Respondents have pleaded that every candidate prior to his appointment in railway service has to undergo medical examinati examination on to assess his fitness as per the medical category prescribed for the respective post. Applicant was found unfit or medical category A A-2 2 required for the post of Goods Guard in the first medical test conducted on 23.03.2019. Hee was referred to Central Super per Specialty Hospital Patna for further check check-up up and his complete medical test was conducted on 24.05.2019 by a Board of three railway doctors. The Board again declared him to be unfit in the prescribed medical
-5- OA/050/00572/2021 category A A-2.. Respondents have denied the applicant's allegation of demand for illegal gratification as baseless.
baseless. Respondents have also pleaded that report of doctors other than railways doctors providing medical fitness cannot be accepted for fresh recruitment. Also, that applicant's comments on his own fitness are irrelevant as his fitness can be assessed by Medical experts in terms of the Medical standards laid down in the Indian Railway Medical Manual.
4. In rejoinder, applicant pleaded that the Medical Board constituted under the direction of the Tribunal had reiterated the opinion of the earlier Board without considering the IRMM guidelines. Applicant has pleaded that no person can be 100% fit and that the Medical Board oard should have assessed his suitability in terms of the job requirements of Goods Guard. The Board did not consider the job profile of Goods Guard as directed by the Tribunal while declaring him unfit.
5. After admission we heard the parties and considered their submissions aand materials on record.
6. Applicant, appearing in person, submitted that the orthopedic deformity for which he was declared unfit for A-2 A category was hereditary and inconsequential to the functioning as Goods Guard. He personally faced no difficulty in walking and other normal activities activities. Applicant questioned the opinion of Medical Board and also that the Board had not complied with the direction of the
-6- OA/050/00572/2021 Tribunal to examine the applicant in terms of duties of Goods Guard. He drew attention to Annexure 25 providing the duties of a Goods Guard and averred that his physical condition would not come in the way of performance of duties as Goods Guard. He further argued that it was not the charter of the Medical Board to indicate how his health would be in future and that the details in the report regarding restricted squatting and limited ROM of left ankle rendering the applicant unfit to discharge the duty was incorrect.
7. Counsel for respondent Shri Ravindra Rai submitted that Goods Guard was a safety category post and medical fitness parameters for the post were provided under the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM). A Applicant pplicant was thrice examined by separate team of rail railway doctors in terms of these parameters and each time he had been declared unfit. L/C further argued that the applicant's 's allegation ation of illegal gratification demand for declaring him fit was without any substance in support and essentially an attempt to impute mot motive ive for declaring him unfit. Shri Rai also submitted that this Tribunal should not form its own opinion about applicant's medical fitness and suitability for the post of Goods Guard. Ld. Ld. counsel urged to accept the Medical Board report and dismiss the OA.
8. It is admitted fact that medical fitness of A-2 A 2 level is a mandatory requirement for appointment to the post of Goods Guard
-7- OA/050/00572/2021 and the parameters for A A-2 level fitness are provided under the IRMM . Applicant has impugned the report of Medi Medical cal Board dated 22.07.2021 declaring him unfit for the post of Goods Guard in medical category A A-2 2 and claimed that his orthopedic deformity was of minor nature which would not be an impediment in the functioning as Goods Guard. Thus, the issue for adjudication adjudication in this OA is whether this Tribunal can sit over rev review iew of the Medical Board report declaring him unfit for the post of Goods Guard under A A-2 2 category.
9. It is settled legal position that the Court/Tribunal have to show deference and considerati consideration on to the recommendation of an expert committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In Vidhi Himmat Katariya Vs State of Gujarat [(2019) 10 SCC 20], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the cases where persons with locomotor disability had claim claimed ed admission in accordance with the regulations which was in force prior to 2019 amendment. MCI had modified the disability conditions by a notification on 04.02.2019 in accordance with the report of independent Expert Committee comprising eminent doctors in various specialties.
specialties. The Apex Court did not grant any relief and observed as under:
" Therefore, when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts-in experts in the present case, the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and the Medical Board of AIIMS , New Delhi, more particularly when there are no allegations of mala fides. "
-8- OA/050/00572/2021
10. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in an analogous case of Ankit Kumar vs State Of U.P. & 3 Other Others (Writ Writ Petition No. 5668 of 2021)) dismissed the writ petition on 3rd August, 2021 as lacking in merit.
The petitioner in that case had cleared the physical efficiency test and document verification stage for recruitment to the post of Constable in UP Police but was declared unfit due to impaired ears in the medical test conducted by the Medical Board. In re-medical medical examination he was again found unfit due to dysfunctional ears.
Subsequently, the petitioner got the opinion of one private ENT Specialist that his ears were fine. The petitioner also obtained a prescription from a Government District Hospital stating there is no dysfunction in his ears. Relying upon the two aforesaid two medical reports the petition petitioner claimed that he was wrongly declared unfit and prayed for writ of mandamus commanding respondents to conduct re-medical examination. While dismissing the writ petition, Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"33.
33. Thus, in this view of the fact, this Court believes that unless and until the candidate demonstrates by placing genuine and authentic material that the opinion of the Medical Board or Review Medical Board is erroneous or capricious or vague and smacks of malafide, the Court should refrain from interfering with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board which is a body constituted of experts to assess the fitness of candidate as per the norms and standards prescribed in respect of fitness of a candidate who is supposed to work in the police force."
11. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2020 ADJ Online 0073)) echoed the similar view and observed as under.
-9- OA/050/00572/2021 "7. The scope of interference in matters relating to assessment of fitness by a Medical Board constituted under the statutory rules in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, in our opinion, would be extremely limited.
8. The Courts have, time and again, emphasised the need for caution when candidatess seek to assail the correctness of the findings of a Medical Board constituted under a recruitment process adopted by the State authorities, on the basis of some medical report obtained by them.
11. In a case where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder a procedure has been prescribed for testing the medical fitness of candidates by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a candidate on the basis of some subsequent report(s) procured by him from a private practitioner(s)."
12. Applicant has alleged in this OA that while undergoing the medical test in March 2019, a demand for illegal gratification was made to clear his medical fitness which he had ignored. There is no material on record to substantiate this allegation. Applicant also did not report this to the appropriate law enforcing agency for taking suitable action action. The allegation legation of illegal gratification in this OA is apparently to cast a shadow of mala fide against the Medical Board. However, as the applicant was examined thrice by separate Medical Board,, it sounds unreasonable that members of each Board were under some influence and acting mala fide. Also, the applicant has himself admitted that he suffered from congenital orthopedic deformity of minor nature. Whether this deformity would impair the functioning as a Goods Guard is to be decided by medical experts.
13. Thus, considering onsidering the entirety of facts and legal aspects discussed above above, we are reluctant to interfere with the impugned
-10- OA/050/00572/2021 report of Medical Board. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the report of Medical Board was erroneous or smacks of mala fide,, hence we are inclined to hold that OA lacks merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, OA is dismissed as lacking merit. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. N Noo cost.
[ Sunil Kumar Sinha] [ M.C. Verma] Administrative Member Judicial Member srk