Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By G.P. Singhal, AM -

The facts and circumstances of these two Original Applications are similar and therefore they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of discussion we are taking the facts of OA.No.472/2010.

2 The applicants in these two OAs had appeared for selection to the post of Traffic Apprentices, in response to the advertisement dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure A-1). They appeared in the examination held for selection and were finally selected for the post. The applicants were issued offer of appointment dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure A-4), which was subject to their being found medically fit for the post. Therefore, the applicants appeared for medical examination but were declared unfit for A-2 category, which was the requirement for this post. Thereafter, the applicants were informed vide letter dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure A-6) that, on their consent, they may be examined for lower medical categories, for which they will have to deposit Rs.24 as examination fee and submit various documents mentioned in the letter before 15.1.09. The applicants appeared for medical examination again and, this time, according to them, they were found to be fit for B2 and below category. In this regard, the applicant in OA.472/10 has filed certificate dated 12.1.09 (Annexure A-6), while the applicant in OA.471/10 has simply filed memorandum of appearance for the second medical examination. The applicants also applied for consideration in regard to alternative appointment, as was expected of them, in response to the said letter dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure A-6). However, they were informed vide letter dated 4.6.09 (Annexure A-8) that their representations in regard to alternative appointment have not been considered by the competent authority.

4 The applicant in OA.472/10 has vide MA.1116/11 filed certain documents, which are the lists of candidates who have been provided alternative appointment, after their failing in the medical fitness examination, during the period 1999-2009 in various Railways. The document at Annexure A contains a list of 5 persons who were selected as Traffic Apprentices during the period 2005-2009 and after being declared medically unfit for the post, provided alternative appointment by the Western Railways. The annexure B is the information provided by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Nagpur, where only one candidate was provided alternative appointment during this period. However, he was appointed vide letter dated 5.6.09, which is after the circular dated 25.5.09. At Annexure C there is copy of letter dated 1.4.09, from the office of Chief Personnel Officer, Bilaspur, which gives list of 5 candidates who were provided alternative appointment on being declared medically unfit. At Annexure D there is a list of 27 candidates, who have been provided alternative appointment during the 10 year period under West Central Railways. Thus, the applicants contention is that like all these cases, they too deserve to be considered for alternative appointment as they were found medically unfit for the post on which they were selected by RRB and had submitted their representation for alternative appointment on 16.1.2009 which was much before the date of Railway Boards letter dated 25.5.2009.

9 The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per IREM Para 125, the Traffic Apprentices are to fill 25% of the posts in the categories of Section Controllers, Station Masters, Yard Masters and Traffic Inspectors. Thus, even though the post of Traffic Apprentice is not specifically mentioned in the said circular dated 4.9.2001, since they are eligible for appointment to the post of Station Masters, by implication, this circular shall be applicable in their case also. In regard to the order passed by the Patna Bench of CAT in OA.430/2009, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in that case, the applicant had applied for the posts of Goods Guard as well as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk (in short ECRC). The RRB had selected him for the post of Goods Guard, for which he was found to be medically unfit. However, the applicant therein was medically fit for the other post of ECRC, for which also he had duly applied. Since the case of applicant in that O.A. did not belong to any of the categories mentioned in the Railway Board circular dated 4.9.2001 (RRCB No.5/2001), the matter is quite different from that of present applicants. Thus the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the present case.

12 In regard to contention of the respondents that the post of Traffic Apprentices was covered in the earlier Railway Board Circular dated 4.9.01 (RRCB No.5/10) read with Para 125 of IREM, we find that the applicant in OA.472/10 has filed the list of 5 persons who were declared medically unfit for the post of Traffic Apprentices and they were thereafter provided alternative appointment during the period from 2005-07 in Western Railway (Annexure A-MA.1116/11). Thus, if the said circular dated 4.9.01 was applicable for traffic apprentices, how could these people be provided alternative appointment after that date? In any case, this circular provides in its para-5 that The fact that the candidates who failed in the medical examination for these categories will not be eligible for any alternative appointment in the Railways, should be mentioned clearly in the employment notice so as to discourage those candidates, who do not fulfill medical requirements, from applying. The Circular further provides that the candidates were to be asked to enclose a medical certificate from an Eye-Specialist regarding vision in a prescribed Proforma, when they apply for these posts. However, the respondents have not submitted anything to show that such a requirement was ever mentioned in the advertisement in regard to candidates applying for the post of Traffic Apprentices. Thus, there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the respondents that this circular No.RRCB No.5/01 dated 4.9.2001 was applicable in the case of Traffic Apprentices.