Mithun Kumar Ray vs Northern Railway And Ors

S.N. Terdal, Member, J

Since identical issues are raised in these applications and both the parties are relying on the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000 (IRMM) in all the cases, as such all these cases are dealt with by this common order.

We have heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate, counsel for applicants and Mr Satpal Singh, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

In OA 3150/2016, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"a) Allow this application;

b) Set aside the impugned fitness/unfitness certificate for appointment as non-gazetted Railway employees bearing Certificate No. RRC/L.No./10339413 dt. 18.8.15 at S.No. 362356 in respect of applicant No.4 as the applicant has been declared medically unfit against the guidelines for medical examination to ascertain fitness;

c) Consequently direct the respondents to re-examine the applicant for the purposes of ascertaining his fitness/unfitness for group D posts strictly in accordance with guidelines by a new Board of Doctors in a time bound manner and finally direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to group-D post for which he has been selected with all consequential benefits from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and allowed to join duties;

d) Grant any other relief which Your Lordship deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

e) Award the cost."

In other cases the prayer No. (a) and (c) are the same and prayer No. (a) is regarding the medical certificate with respect to the respective applicants.

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicants in all these cases are suffering from blindness and hence they were disabled persons and they appeared in the recruitment process of Group 'D' posts against 1% quota reserved for disabled persons as per rules. In the recruitment tests they were declared successful and were sent to medical examination. But, however, in the medical examination they were declared medically unfit by issuing impugned medical certificates. The applicants have challenged their respective medical certificate declaring them unfit and they have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to re-examine them by constituting a Review Medical Board.

The counsel for the applicants vehemently and strenuously submitted that as per para 12.1 to 12.6 of the IRMM, 2000 which has been produced as Annexure R-1 by the respondents, the reason for unfitness stated in the respective medical certificate declaring them unfit is not covered. He further submitted that the grounds stated in respective medical certificate are not covered, the said certificates should be set aside and they shall be directed to be re-examined strictly as per the guidelines contained in the IRMM, 2000.

The counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that the guidelines are applicable to normal persons and while considering the applicants as per the guidelines their disability was also taken into account and the impugned medical certificates was issued. He further submitted that they have already filled quota of 1% in the said category by filling up deserving candidates who were having no medical problems. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned medical certificates were legally valid and there is no ground to set aside them. But, however, the counsel for the respondents has not produced any other guidelines apart from the one which were produced by them as Annexure R-1.

In view of the fact that the reasons given in the impugned medical certificates are not clearly covered in the above said guidelines, we are of the opinion that the said medical certificates being Annexure 'A' in each of these OAs are required to be set aside and each of the applicants shall be subjected to medical examination once again by Review Medical Board as prayed for by the applicants in para (C) of their applications.

Accordingly, the OAs are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.