AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)Quash the speaking order issued by the third respondent vide no. Y.MD.84/Shri Nagaraja M/2025 dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure-A2) by declaring it as unconstitutional and arbitrary;
(ii)Direct the respondents to re-consider their decision of making unfit of the applicant due to Diabetes Mellitus and on considering the appeal dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-A4) it may please be ordered for conducting re-medical examination by constituting a medical board with the specialists drawn from reputed government and private hospital; and
(iii)Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
The aforesaid reliefs have been sought on the following grounds and legal provisions:-
“1.In the second para of the speaking order dated 20.05.2025 of Respondent no.3 (Annexure-A2), it has been mentioned that during re-examination by the divisional Medical committee on 20.05.2025 the applicant found to have high blood sugar with evidence of target and high damage. But the details of the members and their findings have not been disclosed and the applicant has not been re-examined so far.
2.Though it has been stated in the speaking order that the sugar level are in high range, the report dated 03.09.2025 of the Mahatma Gandhi Diagnostics states that the HbA1c and Average Blood Glucose level are within normal range. The copy of the lab report dated 03.09.2025 is placed as Annexure-A5.
3.Blood glucose levels fluctuate throughout the date, which is also the case of the people without diabetes and one test result cannot be an assessment of the overall health of a person with diabetes. Further the diabetes is not a disease and it is only a disorder.
4.The case of the applicant is covered by the decision of the Principal Bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA no.3359/2017 dated 30.01.2019.”
The brief facts of the case, as set out in the synopsis, are as follows:-
“1.The applicant applied to the post of Technician Grade III Electrical (category no.8) in Level-2 in 7th CPC pay matrix in response to the Centralised employment notice no. 02/2024 issued by the Respondents. Having qualified in the computer Based Test conducted as a part of the selection (Annexure-A1), he attended Document verification followed by Medical Examination.
2.In the Medical examination conducted at Railway Hospital, Mysuru on 13.05.2025, he was declared as unfit due to high blood sugar (Annexure-A3). So, as directed by the first respondent (Annexure-A2), he preferred an appeal (Annexure-A4) against that decision to the second respondent along with the lab report and medical certificate issued by the private hospital for re-medical examination. But his appeal did not fetch any response so far.
3.As no decision has been taken on his appeal, the applicant has no other alternative remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal through this OA seeking the kind intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal for getting justice."
On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder.
The case came up for final hearing on 10.09.2026. Shri K. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Smt. P.K. Praneshwari, learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard.
We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties.
From the record, it is evident that most of the material facts are not in dispute. The principal issue arising for consideration is whether the appeal dated 23.06.2025 submitted by the applicant seeking re-medical examination was duly considered and dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The respondents have stated in their reply that on 23.06.2025 the applicant had submitted an appeal for re-medical examination through the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, to the Principal Chief Medical Director, Hubballi. It is further stated that, upon scrutiny of the medical examination documents, the Principal Chief Medical Director, Hubballi, i.e., Respondent No.2, passed the following order:-
“ As on 13.05.2025, the candidate is having very high Fasting Blood Sugar-FBS-220% and 318mg%, PPBS-336 mg%, HbA1C-9.9%, Spot Urine Creatinine-99.90mg/dl, Spot Urine Microalbumin-45.3mg/g, Spot A/C Ratio – 45.34. The above values are very high and not normal. They indicate the diabetic status of the candidate and end organ (kidney) damage. The biochemical values once obtained may not be reproducible. In view of this, the appeal for remedical examination is rejected.”
Thus, according to the respondents, the appeal for re-medical examination was rejected by the Principal Chief Medical Director / South Western Railway, Hubballi. The applicant, however, asserts that no such order was ever communicated to him and that he has not received any decision upon his appeal.
Significantly, the respondents have not placed the aforesaid order on record before us. They have also not been able to indicate the date on which the alleged order was passed. The reply statement is conspicuously silent on this material aspect. In the absence of the order itself, or any material establishing its date and communication to the applicant, the assertion of the respondents that the appeal was duly considered and rejected cannot, by itself, establish that the statutory/procedural requirement of consideration of the appeal was duly complied with.
The applicant had applied for the post of Level-2 in 7th CPC pay matrix in response to the employment notice issued by the respondents. Having qualified in the Computer Based Test (CBT) conducted as part of the selection process, he was subjected to medical examination, in which he was declared unfit vide the speaking order dated 20.05.2025, bearing the subject regarding speaking order of Nagaraja M vide Ref No/Y.MD.84/Shri Nagaraja M/2025. Pursuant thereto, an intimation regarding the medical fitness and provision of appeal to the candidate dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure – A3) was issued, which, inter alia, prescribed the procedure for preferring an appeal.
These documents are not in dispute. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted his appeal seeking re-medical examination vide letter dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure – A4), enclosing the medical certificate and other medical material.
The specific case of the applicant is that, subsequent to the submission of Annexure – A4, no further action was taken by the respondents. We have considered the submissions of both parties and carefully examined the material available on record. The respondents have failed to place before us any cogent material demonstrating that the appeal dated 23.06.2025 was dealt with in the manner prescribed under the applicable rules/instructions.
The reference in the speaking order dated 20.05.2025 to the re-examination by the Members of the Divisional Medical Committee on 20.05.2025, at which the applicant was allegedly found to have high blood sugar with evidence of target end organ damage, is materially distinct from the question of consideration of the subsequent appeal dated 23.06.2025. The former pertains to the medical assessment conducted prior to or contemporaneous with the decision impugned before us, whereas the latter is the statutory/procedural avenue invoked by the applicant against that medical finding. Therefore, the alleged medical assessment dated 20.05.2025 cannot, by itself, constitute compliance with the requirement of re-medical examination pursuant to the appeal dated 23.06.2025.
On the material available before us, we find that the respondents have not satisfactorily established that the applicant underwent the prescribed re-medical examination pursuant to his appeal.
We further find that the respondents have failed to place on record any material demonstrating that, after the appeal dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure – A4) seeking re-medical examination in Proforma-B, the prescribed procedure for re-medical examination was followed.
The respondents have relied upon a letter No.2008/H/5/18 dated 08.01.2016 with subject, Fitness of candidates including cases of compassionate ground appointments, PwD (non-gazetted) & land losers etc. found diabetic in first medical examination. However, the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the said letter either exempts the applicant from re-medical examination or dispenses with such examination in the circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the letter specifically lays down the procedure for deciding the medical fitness of candidates suffering from diabetic conditions (diagnosed as per above parameters), and provides, inter alia, as follows:-
“Re-examination would be done by a “Three Member Medical Committee” comprising of one physician of P.G. Qualification/Endocrinologist if available; one ophthalmologist & headed by a SAG medical officer of the divisional/zonal hospital. Recommendation of the Committee will be accepted by CMS/MD/CMO/ACMS in-charge as the case may be and that the purpose of re-examination will be the thorough evaluation and investigation to rule out any complication of Diabetes or involvement of any End Organ”.
The aforesaid prescription assumes significance because the very basis of the applicant’s medical unfitness is stated to be not merely an elevated blood glucose level but also evidence of target/end-organ damage. Consequently, where the applicable Railway Board instructions contemplate a specific medical committee and a thorough evaluation to rule out complications of diabetes or involvement of any end organ, compliance with that prescribed procedure cannot be treated as an empty formality.
The Circular does not preclude re-examination by the three Member Medical Committee or subsequent reconsideration pursuant to an appeal. On the contrary, the procedure prescribed therein contemplates such re-examination for determining the medical fitness of candidates found to have diabetic conditions. In the present case, we find that the respondents have not established that the applicant's appeal was subjected to such a process.
It is also material that the respondents have placed on record only the speaking order dated 20.05.2025, against which the applicant submitted the appeal contained in Annexure – A4. The medical assessment referred to in the said speaking order is therefore not a substitute for the re-medical examination and reconsideration contemplated pursuant to the appeal.
The respondents, being the authorities responsible for maintaining and producing the relevant medical and administrative records, were required to demonstrate from the record that the prescribed appellate/re-medical procedure had in fact been followed. In the absence of such material, and particularly when the applicant specifically asserts that no decision on his appeal was communicated to him, the benefit of the doubt cannot be extended to an administrative process which has not been demonstrated to have been completed in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the appeal of the applicant afresh, strictly in accordance with the prescribed law and procedure. Such consideration shall necessarily include compliance with the applicable instructions governing re-medical examination of candidates found to have diabetic conditions.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal submitted by the applicant dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure – A4) and take all necessary steps as prescribed in law, i.e., re-examination by a three Member Medical Committee and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Instructions issued by the Railway Board dated 08.01.2016.
Such compliance shall be made in an expedite manner in any event not later than 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
OA stands disposed of in terms of above.
All associated MAs, if any pending, shall be treated as disposed of.
No order as to costs.