Ms. Mishika Pandita and Mr. Mohd. Changez Ali Khan v. Sumit Kumar

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in OA No.942/2017 whereby petitioners have been directed to appoint respondent on the post of Trackman for which he was found eligible, suitable and medically fit in A-2 category.

2. Though the present petition has been filed on various grounds, however, learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions, has confined the grounds of challenged to grounds C and D, which are reproduced as under:-

D) Because the Ld. Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the medical certificate of the respondent dated 15.03.2016 was never challenged by him and has thus attained finality. It is apposite to mention Rule 506 of Indian Railway Medical Manual which reads as under:

17:40

3. Brief facts of the case, as spelt out by learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 27.07.2023, are that the respondent was medically examined on 06.06.2014 and was found to be fit in medical category A-2 and below, as per the Medical Fitness Report. On the basis of the said Medical Fitness Report, he was allotted the post of Trackman in Moradabad Division. When he went to join the said post, he was again subjected to a second medical examination. However, in the second medical examination, he was found unfit, stating as under:- “I do hereby certify that I have examined (Name) (Unfit A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2) Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Verma (Age) 23.08.1993 a candidate for appointment as (designation) Trackman Class B-2 and below in the Personnel Branch/Department whose signature/left thumb impression has been appended below in my presence. Unfit Aye One, Aye Two, Aye Three, Bee One Bee Two. I consider him *fit/Unfit for such appointment.”

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred OA before the learned Tribunal, on the ground that even if the second medical was warranted, he was found fit in C[1] and C[2] and could have been offered a post as per the said medical requirements.

5. Further case of the respondent was that his case was squarely covered by a decision dated 31.03.2014, in O.A. No. 1957/2013, titled as Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. The case of the petitioners- Union of India before learned Tribunal was that since the respondent was found medically ‘unfit’ in the second medical examination, hence, he could not be offered the post of Trackman and the remaining posts had already been filled-up. 17:40

7. The issue before the learned Tribunal was that as to why the respondent was subjected to second medical examination when he was already found fit in the first medical examination for category A[2] and below. Accordingly, learned Tribunal did not appreciate the action of the petitioners in subjecting the respondent to a second medical examination and held that there is no rule qua the second medical examination to be conducted. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed that the first medical examination of the respondent was conducted on 06.06.2014, i.e. at the time of selection, and he was found fit. Thereafter, after around two years, the petitioners asked the respondent to appear in second medical examination which was conducted on 15.03.2015 whereby the respondent was declared unfit, as he had developed cataract in his eyes.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of impugned order and material placed on record, this Court finds that in the medical examination conducted on 06.06.2014, the respondent was declared ‘Fit in A-2 and below”. However, vide letter dated 24.06.2016, i.e. after a span of two years, he has been subjected to second medical examination, wherein he has been declared ‘unfit’ and his candidature has been rejected.

9. The medical examination of a candidate is required to find out physical and mental well being of an employee at the time of appointment. It has to be ensured that the medical examination complies with the principles of fairness and established procedures and the said process is completed in a time scheduled manner. If a person has been declared ‘fit’ to join service in the first medical examination, on what premise the second medical examination is initiated, the reasons therefor have to be substantiated. In the present case, no plausible reasons are forthcoming for 17:40 conducting second medical examination of the respondent and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected petitioners’ contentions for not offering appointment to the petitioner.

10. Thus, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.