Subhash Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the prayer for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.01.2020 and 04.02.2020 (Annexure A-7) whereby the applicant has been declared unfit in medical category Aye two (A-2) and appoint the applicant on the post of Station Master pursuant to the Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual notification dated 21.06.2018 after considering his eye vision with glasses as per provision of 512, 519 and 523 of Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual.

A brief summary of the facts of this case is that the applicant was initially appointed as Track Maintainer in North Eastern Railway, Varanasi Division, Senior Section Engineering Siwan (West) in the grade of Rs. 1800/- on 25.12.2012. On 21.06.2018, pursuant to the Master Circular No.37 (Annexure A-1) regarding promotion of Non-gazetted (Group-C) staff to Non-selection posts- Policy & Procedures, a notification — Employment Notice No. NER/RRC/GDCE/2018 — was issued inviting applications from regular Group-C and D in Northern Eastern Railway for filling the promotional posts and the applicant applied for the same qualifying the prelims test, main written test and ultimately the psycho test conducted by the opposite parties subsequent to which he was called for document verification on 08.01.2020 and thereafter he was sent for medical examination through the letter dated 08.01.2020 for the post of Station Master Group-5 (A-2). On 20.01.2020, the medical examination of the applicant was done by the committee headed by respondent No.5 who marked the eye vision of the applicant 6/60, 6/6, N/6 and 6/36, 6/6 and n/6 respectively without glass as per provisions of para 512 (1)(A) of Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual. The applicant then got a certificate from the senior eye surgeon of District Hospital according to which he is fit for the post of station master with glasses as per provision 519, 523 of the Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual. The respondents, however, vide the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 declared the applicant medically unfit pursuant to the report dated 23.01.2020. On 08.06.2020 the applicant was again called for medical test for another post of Senior Commercial CUM- Ticket Clerk where he was found fit but on 08.10.2020 a temporary panel list was issued where the name of the applicant was neither mentioned for the post of Station Master nor for Senior Commercial CUM-Ticket Clerk.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been found unfit on the recommendation of the three member committee in Aye two category due to substandard vision as per IRMM 2000 Para 512(1) as per which no glass is permitted in Aye two category.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Committee of doctors headed by respondent No.5 has ignored the standards provided in para 512 (1)(B) as per which for the employees serving in the department for more than 6 years the eye vision has to be examined with glasses which the applicant fulfills in as much as the eye vision of the applicant is fit for the post of station master in support of which he has got a certificate from the senior eye surgeon of District Hospital. He further states that the respondents have not considered the provisions of para 519, 523 of the Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual according to which the medical examination of the employee to the higher classes was to be considered. Thus, the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 declaring the applicant medically unfit pursuant to the report dated 23.01.2020 passed by the respondents is illegal, unreasoned and in violation of Rules 512, 519 and 523 of Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that three doctors committee of Railway had examined the applicant and applicant has been declared medically unfit vide medical certificate dated 23.01.2020, hence he is not entitled for re-examination.

We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

From perusal of the record, it is evident that applicant was appointed as Track Maintainer in North Eastern Railway on 25.12.2012. In the medical examination, he was declared medically unfit by the Railway doctors. The applicant has also got a certificate from the senior eye surgeon of District Hospital (Annexure No.8) which finds the applicant fit in Aye two category with glasses. As per the Master Circular of Railway Medical Manual, para 512(1) (B) provides the standards for re-examination during service for employees with not less than six years of service which could be permanent or temporary, including continuous service as casual labour, if in the same medical category. Para 519 of the said circular also provides that employees with six years, or more of continuous service on Railways sent for medical examination on promotion to higher class should be examined according to the standards of examination during service of the higher class. Para 523 provides for relaxation of standards at re-examination which would apply only for employees with not less than six years service and for Categories A-1 and A-2 there shall be no relaxation of residual vision below 6/60 in each eye. The applicant had joined the services in the year 2012 and the report of the medical committee declares the naked eye vision of the applicant as 6/60. The notification regarding the examination for the promotional posts was issued in the year 2018 culminating by the year 2020. Para 522 (ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, Volume I, third Edition 2000, clearly provides that if any medical certificate is produced by a candidate as evidence about the possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of the first medical authority, the certificate will not be taken into consideration unless it contains a note by the medical practitioner concerned, to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate has already been rejected as unfit for service by the medical authority appointed by the Govt. in this behalf. In the instant case, applicant has produced a medical certificate of fitness issued by the senior eye surgeon of District Hospital.

On the basis of aforementioned observations we are of the view that the O.A. is liable to be allowed. Thus, the O.A. is allowed in terms of the observations recorded herein above. The respondents are directed to refer the matter of the applicant for re-medical examination and pass necessary orders in terms of the observations.

There shall be no order as to costs.