Satendra Kumar vs Union Of India Through It’s Secretary

Nita Chowdhury, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the applicant in view of the result of Medical Board constituted by G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi;

ii) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."

This case was earlier came up for consideration before this Court on 22.2.2019 and this Tribunal passed the following orders:-

"Nobody appears for applicant.

Learned counsel for respondent is heard.

As this OA is based on a factual position with regard to the decision of medical board with regard to recruitment of the applicant of this OA. Learned counsel for respondents draws our attention to Annexure-A filed in the OA, in which the Medical Board has given the clear cut opinion that "He requires regular follow up in the CTVS OPD. The Medical Board finds him to be MEDICALLY FIT, however, the railway board may examine him as per their standards."

He also draws our attention to Annexure A-3 filed by him in which the Railway Medical Board has taken a decision and stated that in view of the finding of the medical board, they were unable to qualify the applicant for appointment in the Railways.

In view of the absence of the applicant, he is given last opportunity to plead his case. It is made clear, no further opportunity shall be given.

List on 26.02.2019 under the caption "Part-Heard"."

Today when this matter came up for consideration, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is an aspirant for the post of Group D and not for any post pertaining to the Army or discipline force(s) and as such the respondents need not insist on him having the highest health fitness and they are duty bound to re-consider the case of the applicant by constituting a Medical Board in the light of the observations made by the G.B. Pant Hospital where he was examined after the decision of the respondent's Board.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was a case of cardiac defect (ASD septal defect) for which he was operated and he has cardiac enlargement (LVH) and RBB Block and further submitted that on the basis of finding of the medical examination of the applicant, a three members Committee of doctors was formed, which also found the applicant as unfit. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that on the strength of medical report of G.B. Pant Hospital, the applicant is claiming re-consideration of his case but the said Hospital has not declared him in clear terms as fit but the said Hospital also observed that railway board may examine him as per their standards. He further placed reliance on Para 511 (1) to (3) of Indian Railway Medical Regulation, 2000, which reads as under:

(1) A Candidate as well as a serving Railway employee must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any defect likely to interfere with the effective performance of the duties of his appointment.

(2) Examiners will use their own discretion as to the scope of the general physical examination in each case and will judge cases on their merit, taking into consideration the prospective duties of the examinee as also the age of the examinee and need for continued fitness for the remaining years of service.

(3) Measurement of height, weight and chest girth will be recorded if specifically required. The skin, the connective tissues, the circulatory, respiratory, digestive, nervous genitourinary, skeletal and muscular system will be subjected to such examination as is deemed necessary. The principal points attended to are connected with ascertaining:-

(a) the condition of heart and lungs;

......"

5.1 Counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules on the subject, request for such re-medical examination has to be submitted within one month from the date of declaration of his case as unfit and in this case the applicant was declared medically unfit on 22.7.2015 and the said request for made by the applicant vide his application dated 21.8.2015 which was sent by post to the respondents and as such since his application has not been reached to the concerned authority within one month, so there is no question of considering the same.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the factual positions of this case, we felt that it is not a fit case for remitting the same to the respondents for considering his request by constituting a Medical Board for re-medical examination in pursuance to the said medical report of G.B. Pant Hospital for the reason that the said Hospital has not in clear terms declared him medically fit as the said Hospital has also observed in the said report that the applicant requires regular follow up in the CTVS OPD. The Medical Board finds him to be MEDICALLY FIT, however, the railway board may examine him as per their standards. The respondent strongly argued that as such on the strength of the same, the applicant cannot be permitted to claim as a matter of right for re-medical examination of his case by constituting a Medical Board by the respondent's department especially having regard to the fact that the rules of the respondents are very clear as quoted above on the subject. Further, it is admitted fact that the said request has not been made within one month from the date of declaration of his case as unfit by the respondents.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated above, we find the present OA bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.