D. Prashanth Kumar v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order(s) or direction(s) more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus in declaring the inaction of the official Respondent No.3 in not conducting the re-medical examination to the Petitioner in pursuants to the rejection of first medical examination as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. '14 and 16 of Indian constitution and also violative of lndian Railways medical Manual (rRMM). |.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:26534 OF 2017 Petition Under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to conduct the re-medical examination to the Petitioner in pursuants to the rejection of first medical examin:rtion, in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.PAVANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU The Court made the following ORDER 1 wp-21580 2017 NBK, ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.21580 of 2017 ORDER: The petitioner was trained in Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda, for the course of Course Completed Act Apprentice, during the period 2004 Lo 2OO7 under the Apprentice Act, 1961. In response to the Notification dated

25.06.2007, he was screened for the post of Substitute Helper-ll (as fresh face) in the Scale of Rs .5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1800 in Caniage Repair Workshop, Tirupati. He was subjected to medical tests as per Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) by the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Guntakal, and was certified as "unfit for all medical categories" vide Certificate dated ,'r.g6.2OiO. Petitioner, on his own volition, got himself tested at Gandhi' Hospital, Hyderabad, and submitted a Representation dated 23 .06.201 I , stating that he underwent medical examination at Gandhi Hospital, and the medical authorities cerlified that "No abnormality in the vision of eyes and physical fitness". The representation was replied vide Letter dated 04'08.201I by stating that the request of the petitioner for re-medical examination could not be considered as the appeal tii.ne was only 30 days and the petitioner approached after two years, and further the petitioner has suppressed the fact of his medical rejection by the Railway authorities, which is evident from the fact that the Gandhi Hospital certificate does not refer to the earlier rejection of the petitioner by the Railway medical authorities. The petitioner thereafter filed another representation dated 15 .07 .20 16, and as the same was not considered, he filed WP.No.2 lll of 2017,wherein this Court passed interim orders dated 01.03.2017 directing to consider the representation' In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner's representation was 2 wp 21580_2017 NBK, ' considered and rejected vide the impugned Order dated lO.O4.2Ol7. Aggrieved bv non-consideration of his request for re-medical examination, lhe petitioner fi led rhis writ peririon.

2. Heard Mr. Jakkula Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways. perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, mainly contends that after the petitioner was declared medical unfit initially by the respondent-Railways, the petitioner got examined in Gandhi Hospital and was declared fit by .rision and also physicatly fit, but the same was not considered by the respo,dent authorities. Leamed counsel submits that the delay was due various oral and written representations given by the petitioner to consider hirr for re-medical examination, and hence the rejection of his request is illegal.

4. Leamed counsel for respondent-Railways, based ,:n the counter affidavit, submits thar as against the medical results of th,: year 2009, the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority within one month, and he approached the respondent-authorities after two years, and this factum has been communicated in the letter while rejecting his request for re-medical examination in terms of Paragraph No.522 of the IRMM Volume-I, 3.d edition, Year-2000 (Annexure-2). It is also stated that Letter clate 04.0g.201 I pertains to prer ious grievance of the petitioner and the Rule position in terms of Indian Medical Manual are communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.04.2017. and the petitioner had again filed this writ petition with same contentions. It is also contended that in terms of Railway Board Circular No.7l /2016, the scheme of engagement of Course (lompleted Act qfPPrentice into Croup -D vacancies had been terminated and 20%o t: a. I L,/r 3 wp 21580 2017 NBK, ] r weightage had been provided in the vacancies of recruitment under Railway Recruitment Cell, Secunderabad.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that, in the first medical examination during 2009 under the Indian Railways Medical Manual Rules, the petitioner was certified to be "unfitfor all medical categories ". Thereafter, after passage of two years, the petitioner got medically examined in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, whereupon he is stated to have been certified as "no abnormality in the vision of eyes and physical firness ". Consequent to the result of medical examination by Gandhi Hospital, the petitioner approached the authorities with a representation dated 15.07.2016 requesting re-medical examination. The request was rejected by stating that the petitioner suppressed the factum of earlier rejection by Railway medical authorities, as the Gandhi Hospital certificate does not refer to the Railway authorities' rejection of petitioner in the earlier medical tests. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2 I I I of 2017 alleging non-consideration of representation dated 15'01 '2016 for conducting re-medical examination, in pursuance of his medical fitness certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital authorities. This Court passed interim order dated 01 .03.2017 ,directing respondent No.3-Chief PersonneI officer, to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 15.07 '2016' The 3'd respondent passed Orders dated 10.04'20 17, by stating as follows: "Furthe( it is observed that he had suppressed the information to the Gandhi hospital authorities that he underwent medical examination in Railway Hospital where he was declared unfit for all categories. This is clear from the fact that the Gandhi Hospital while giving the medical report did not cite the same. As can be seen from the above, the candidate had not fulfilled the basic and mandatory requirement of medical fitness for his 4 wp_21580-2017 N8( l engagement. He was declared medically unfit for all categories as per the provisions of IRMM. He also did not subrnit any appeal within 30 days after his declaring as "medically unfit". Now it is almost 10 years have passed and no point in re-medical examination as requested by him considering the safety of running of trains."

6. A perusal of the Order dated 10.04.2017 discloses that the petitioner's request for re-medical examination has been taken rrp and rejected by the competent authority, by detailing the reasons for rejection. This Court, having perused the same. does not see any itlegaliry in the rejection; especially when the matter relates to medical fitness in the light of safety of running the trains and a specific concem was expressr:d, keeping in view the medical fitness requiied for the job to be per-formed. Further, it is also the specific contention of the respondent-Railways that training under Apprentices Act 196 I is only an obligation under the Act and it do not make binding on the organization which trained the candirlate for an automatic engagement in Railways. Admittedly, the petitioner has appealed against his initial rejection on medical grounds after two years, and the appeal time was only one month as provided under the Medical Manual of the Department; and almost 10 years have passed from the date of his initial rejection on medical grounds. The representation which was the subject matter of earlier i: writ petition No.2l I L of 2017, was considered by the respondent-Railways and rejected by a speaking order. Furthermore, it is Uiven to understand by the Order dated 10.04.2017 passed by respondent-Railways that the erstwhile policy of inducting the candidates with appr,enticeship training into Group-D vacancies of Railway Department has been terminated; and in that place a new policy of addin g20o/o weightage marks to apprenticeship trained \ 5 wp_21580-2017 N8K,I candidates has been put in place' This being a matter of policy decision of respondent-Railways with regard to recruitment process' and also considering the reasons explained in the order dated 10'04.2017 by the 3,d respondent-Chief Personnel Officer, in regard to rejection of the request for re-medical examination of the petitioner, this Court does not see any illegalityintheimpugnedactionofrespondent-Railwaysinnotconsidering thecandidatureofpetitionerforre-medicalexamination.Inthatviewofthe matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed' T.Accordingly,thewritpetitionisdismissed'Nocosts'Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// D SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To One CC to SRI G.PAVANA MURTHY, Advocate I One CC to SRI G.VENKATES HWARLU, Advocate ( Two CD Copies t 1 a 3 PUC] SA GJPw I i L I I I I I I t L\R iliE Si o - * 16 tuL ?tE .>e - -r rrif I * HIGH COURT DATED:24t\4t2O2s . ORDER WP.No.21580 of 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. 6rd^ ryn"