Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1630 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 35013 of 2009)
S.K.M. Haider …. Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. A short question that arises for consideration in this
appeal, by special leave, is as to whether the appellant has been
rightly denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector (TCR),
Group ‘C’ post, on account of his having not been declared
medically fit in Class B-2 under Para 510 of Indian Railway Medical
Manual (for short, ‘IRMM’).
3. The appellant—S.K.M. Haider—joined the service in
Northern Railway as Luggage Porter, Group ‘D’ post, on December
1
3, 1991. The next channel of promotion from Luggage Porter is to
the post of Ticket Collector. Having acquired eligibility for promotion
to the post of Ticket Collector, the appellant appeared in the written
test held by the respondents on January 8, 2003. He was successful
in the written test and was called for viva-voce by the Interview
Committee on February 25, 2003. On June 24, 2003, a provisional
list of the candidates who were found suitable for the post of Ticket
Collector on the basis of written test and viva voce was prepared in
which the appellant’s name was placed at Serial No. 25.
4. On July 3, 2003, the appellant appeared before the
Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ambala
Cantt. (Respondent No. 3) for medical examination but he was not
declared fit in Class B-2.
5. The appellant challenged the medical report dated July
3, 2003 by filing an appeal before the Chief Medical Director,
Northern Railway. He was asked to appear before the Medical
Board on September 15, 2004. The Medical Board found the
appellant fit in Class C-2 with glasses. Based on the opinion of the
Medical Board, the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the
medical report dated July 3, 2003 was rejected.
2
6. The appellant then got himself examined at All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on November 3, 2004 and it
is his case that he was found medically fit in Class B-2.
7. The appellant aggrieved by his non-promotion to the
post of Ticket Collector approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal,
on February 8, 2006, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and
the counsel for respondents, rejected the original application filed by
the appellant.
8. Being not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the
appellant moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for
redressal of his grievance but there, too, he was unsuccessful and
the writ petition filed by him was dismissed on March 21, 2009.
9. Para 510 in Chapter V of the IRMM deals with
classification of staff for the purpose of vision tests of
candidates and of serving Railway employees. It reads as follows :
“510 . Classification of staff :-
(1) for the purpose of visual acuity and general physical
examination of candidates and of serving Railway employees, the
non-Gazetted Railway services are divided into the following broad
groups and classes. The detailed categories of Railway posts
3
under each of the classes/groups mentioned below are given
in Annexure IV to this chapter :-
Groups Classes
A Vision tests
required in the
interest of public
safety
A-1 Foot plate staff, Rail car
drivers and Navigating
staff (For foot plate staff
see para 520)
A-2.
Other running staff, Other
shunting staff, Point
lockers, Station masters,
and other staff in operative
control of signals.
A-3 Loco, signal and
Transportation Inspectors,
staff authroised to work
trolleys, Yard supervisory
staff, Road motor drivers
and gate keepers on level
crossings.
B. Vision tests
required in the
interest of the
employee himself
or his fellow
workers or both
B-1 Such station and yard non
supervisory, shed and
other staff, excluding shed
man, as are engaged on
duties where failing eye
sight may endanger
themselves or other
employees from moving
vehicles, Road Motor
drivers, permanent Way
Mistries, Gang mates,
Keymen and staff of the
Railway Protection Force.
B-2 Certain staff in workshops
and engine rooms
engaged on duties when
failing eye sight may
4
endanger themselves or
other employees from
moving parts of the
machinery and crane
drivers on open line.
C Vision tests
required in the
interest of
administration
only
C-1 Other workshop and
engine room staff, shed
stockers and other staff in
whom a higher standard of
vision than is required in
clerical and kindred
occupation is necessary
for reasons of efficiency
and others not coming in
Group A or B
C-2 Staff in clerical
occupations not included
in A, B and C-1
(2) As the foot-plate staff have to pay sustained attention, it is
necessary to have separate standards for these staff. These
are enumerated in para 520 below.”
10. The standards of visual acuity requirements are set out
in Para 512 of IRMM. The relevant extract of that provision is as
follows:
“Class Distant Vision Near Vision
A-1 x x xx xx The combined vision with
or without glasses should
be the ability to read
ordinary print. Where
reading or close work is
required, the combined
near vision should be Sn.
0.6
5
A-2 x x xx xx
A-3 x x xx xx
B-1 6/12, 6/24 with or without
glasses. Power of lenses
not to exceed 8 D.
As above
B-2 As above As above
C-1 6/18, nil or combined 6/18
with or without glasses.
Sn. 0.6 with or without
glasses where reading or
close work is required.
C-2 6/24, nil or 6/24 combined
with or without glasses”.
As above.
11. It would be seen from Para 510 of IRMM that non-
Gazetted Railway services have been divided into three broad
groups, namely, groups ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ for the purpose of vision
tests. These three groups have been divided into different classes.
Group A has been divided in Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 while groups
B and C have been divided in two Classes each, viz; B-1, B-2 and
C-1, C-2 respectively. The division of groups, A, B and C for vision
tests appears to have been made keeping in mind the objective, viz;
‘in the interest of public safety’; ‘in the interest of the employee
himself or his fellow workers or both’ and ‘in the interest of
administration only’. The classification of different staff in various
6
‘classes’ is apparently founded to achieve the above objective. The
detailed categories of Railway posts under each of the
classes/groups are given in Annexure IV appended to Chapter V.
Insofar as post of Ticket Collector is concerned, it is categorized in
Class B-2 under the head ‘station supervisory and artisan staff’.
12. Though post of Ticket Collector is categorised in
Annexure IV in Class B-2 but while doing so the underlying object of
division of staff into three broad groups A, B and C for vision tests of
candidates and of serving Railway employees in non-Gazetted
Railway services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly, Class
B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms engaged
on duties. It has been so done because failing eyesight may
endanger themselves or other employees from moving parts of the
machinery and crane drivers on open line. This is in consonance
with the objective of group B viz; `in the interest of the employee
himself or his fellow workers or both’. Insofar as Ticket Collectors
are concerned, vision tests for them are not required ‘in the interest
of employee himself or his fellow workers or both’ as contemplated
in group B but it is required in the interest of administration only –
the objective contemplated in group C. In this view of the matter,
7
there seems to be no rational basis, in relation to the object set out
in Para 510 of IRMM, of categorizing the post of Ticket Collectors
under Class B-2 in Annexure IV. However, it is for the respondents
to have a fresh look insofar as categorisation of posts pertaining to
non-Gazetted Railway services in Annexure IV is concerned.
Suffice it to say that categorization of posts for the purpose of vision
tests must have nexus with the object set out in Para 510. Having
regard to the objective of division of groups/ classes for the purpose
of vision tests under Para 510 of IRMM, the post of Ticket
Collectors can not be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will
be covered by Class C-2. Any inconsistency in categorization of
Railway posts in Annexure IV, in our view, must not operate against
the appellant in getting promotion to the post of Ticket Collector.
13. We hold, as it must be held, that the appellant could not
have been denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector as he
had passed written test and viva voce and was provisionally
selected for the post of Ticket Collector and had been declared
medically fit in Class C-2.
14. Consequently, appeal is allowed; judgment and order
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 21, 2009
8
and the order dated February 8, 2006 passed by the Central
Administration Tribunal, Chandigarh are set aside. The respondents
shall now consider the appellant’s claim for promotion to the post of
Ticket Collector on the basis of his medical fitness in Class C-2 and
his empanelment in the provisional list dated June 24, 2003 and
appropriate order in this regard will be issued within two months from
today. The parties shall bear their own costs.
…………………….J.
(Aftab Alam)
.………………….. J.
(R.M. Lodha)
NEW DELHI.
FEBRUARY 14, 2011.
9