Sudheer Sharma vs M/o Railways
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1400/2021
Reserved on:- 05.02.2026
Pronounced on: - 19.08.2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Sudheer Sharma, Aged 30 years Son of Girja Shankar Sharma, R/o
Sarvoday Nagar Gali No.01, Chilla Road Banda, District Banda Uttar
Pradesh.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - )
Mr. Ankesh Chandel
VERSUS
1. Union of Indian, Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New
Delhi. 110001.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, Jammu Srinagar, Railway Colony
(West), Jammu. Through its Member Secretary. 180012
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
3. Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railways, Divisional
Hospital, Firozpur, Firozpur Cant., Punjab 152001
…Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. CGSC)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs: -
a. Order in the shape of communication no. RRB/J-S/Court-
case/2021 dated 27.05.2021 issued by respondent no.2 may
kindly be set aside being totally illegal, arbitrary and against
the provisions of law.
b. The respondents may kindly be directed to physically examine
the applicant to ascertain whether the nature of disability
suffered by the applicant is permanent or temporary, so as to
settle the issue involved in the present case, once for all.
c. Out of two posts, one post of Health & Malaria Inspector
Grade III advertised vide CEN NO. 02/2019 which have not
been filled up, may kindly be directed to be kept reserved.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
d. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and
circumstances of the case deems fit and proper, may also kindly
be passed in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are
as follows:
a) The facts, as projected by the applicant in the Original
Application, are that the respondents issued Centralised
Employment Notification (CEN) No. 02/2019 for recruitment
to various posts in the paramedical categories of the Indian
Railways. Amongst the posts notified was the post of Health &
Malaria Inspector Grade-III under Northern Railway. The
notification prescribed the requisite educational qualifications
and also indicated the suitability of the post for persons
suffering from locomotor disability. The prescribed
qualification was B.Sc. with Chemistry as a main/optional
subject along with the prescribed Diploma/National Trade
Certificate in Health/Sanitary Inspector.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
b) The applicant claims to possess the requisite educational
qualification and to be suffering from 40% locomotor disability
in one leg [LD (OL)]. He accordingly applied for the post of
Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-III under the locomotor
disability category pursuant to CEN No. 02/2019. His online
application was accepted and he was allotted registration
number 212001876. In support of his claim of disability, the
applicant relied upon a disability certificate dated 29.12.2017
issued by the competent authority.
c) Upon acceptance of his candidature, the applicant was issued an
e-call letter and permitted to participate in the Computer Based
Test held on 29.07.2019. He qualified the said examination and
was thereafter shortlisted for document verification and medical
examination. His Roll No. 212906205025077 figured in the list
of candidates shortlisted for the post of Health & Malaria
Inspector Grade-III. Consequently, an e-call letter was issued
requiring him to appear for document verification and medical
examination on 24.09.2019.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
d) The applicant appeared before the concerned authorities on the
stipulated date and produced his original documents and
testimonials for verification. During document verification,
however, an objection was raised regarding his disability
certificate. According to the applicant, on account of the said
objection he was not permitted to undergo the medical
examination, notwithstanding the fact that he had already
qualified the Computer Based Test and had been shortlisted for
document verification and medical examination.
e) Aggrieved by his exclusion from the further selection process,
the applicant submitted various representations to the
respondents, including representations dated 26.09.2020,
28.09.2020, 13.10.2020, 28.10.2020 and 17.03.2021.
Respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 05.11.2020,
informed the applicant that the disability certificate produced by
him was a temporary disability certificate and was, therefore,
not valid for claiming appointment under the PwBD quota in
terms of CEN No. 02/2019. He was further informed that
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
appointment under the said quota was available to persons
having permanent benchmark disability duly certified by the
competent authority. The communication also indicated that
two posts reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities
were lying vacant owing to non-availability of suitable PwBD
candidates.
f) The case of the applicant is that his locomotor disability was, in
fact, permanent in nature, though it had initially been described
as temporary in the disability certificate. The Unique Disability
ID issued to him on 11.04.2019 reflected 40% locomotor
disability and was valid up to 28.05.2023. Subsequently, a fresh
Unique Disability ID bearing No. UP4010619910050683 was
issued on 10.03.2021, wherein his disability was assessed at
45% and certified to be permanent in nature.
g) The applicant asserts that the subsequent certificate did not
signify the occurrence of a new disability but merely certified
the permanent character of the locomotor disability from which
he had already been suffering. According to him, if the
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
respondents entertained any doubt as to whether his disability
was temporary or permanent, the proper course was to have him
physically examined by the competent Railway Medical Board
instead of rejecting his candidature solely on the basis of the
description contained in the earlier certificate. He contends that
despite furnishing the subsequent disability certificate showing
45% permanent disability, the respondents failed to take the
same into consideration.
h) The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing
O.A. No. 61/665/2021 , titled Sudheer Sharma v. Union of
India & Another , seeking consideration for selection and
appointment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-
III against CEN No. 02/2019 under the locomotor disability
category and also questioning the communication dated
05.11.2020. The said Original Application was disposed of by
this Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2021 with a direction to the
respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s
representation dated 17.03.2021 by passing a reasoned and
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
speaking order and to communicate the decision to him within
the stipulated period.
i) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the applicant submitted a
further representation dated 17.05.2021 along with a certified
copy of the Tribunal’s order dated 15.04.2021 and requested the
respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post in
question. Respondent No. 2 thereafter considered the matter and
rejected the applicant’s claim vide communication No. RRB/J-
S/Court-case/2021 dated 27.05.2021, principally on the ground
that his temporary disability could not be considered for
appointment under the physically handicapped/PwBD quota.
j) The impugned communication records that Medical Memo No.
365150 dated 24.09.2019 had been returned by the concerned
Railway Medical Authority with the observation that the
disability certificate produced by the applicant was temporary.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 had again approached the Chief
Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Firozpur,
requesting that the applicant be examined if he fell within the
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
PwBD category. The Chief Medical Superintendent, however,
reiterated that since the applicant was having a temporary
disability, he could not be examined under the handicapped
quota. Consequently, his claim was rejected without his being
subjected to physical medical examination.
k) The applicant challenges the aforesaid decision primarily on the
ground that the respondents failed to appreciate that, by the
time his representation was being reconsidered pursuant to the
Tribunal’s order, he possessed a certificate issued by the
competent authority certifying his locomotor disability as 45%
and permanent. He contends that the Medical Board ought to
have physically examined him and determined the actual nature
of his disability instead of mechanically relying upon the earlier
temporary disability certificate. According to the applicant,
rejection of his candidature without such examination is
arbitrary and has deprived him of consideration for appointment
despite his having successfully progressed through the earlier
stages of the selection process.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
l) The applicant further pleads that two posts earmarked for
PwBD candidates remained vacant and that, being otherwise
qualified and having successfully cleared the Computer Based
Test, his candidature ought to have been considered against the
available vacancy after proper medical assessment. He
accordingly assails the communication dated 27.05.2021 and
seeks, inter alia, its quashing, a direction to the respondents to
physically examine him for determining the nature of his
disability, and consequential consideration of his candidature
for the post of Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-III under CEN
No. 02/2019.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have
averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the Original Application by
filing their counter reply. At the outset, they have raised
preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the O.A.,
inter alia, on the grounds of limitation and alleged concealment
and suppression of material facts by the applicant. It is further
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
pleaded that the application has not been instituted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the rules and
regulations framed thereunder.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the applicant had
applied pursuant to CEN No. 02/2019 and, in his online
application, declared himself to be a person having 40%
benchmark disability. However, at the stage of document
verification, he produced a disability certificate showing his
disability to be temporary and the certificate was also not in the
requisite format prescribed in Annexure V(B) of CEN No.
02/2019. According to the respondents, the terms of the
recruitment notification were binding upon all candidates and it
was incumbent upon every applicant to ensure that he fulfilled
all the prescribed eligibility conditions as on the closing date of
online registration, i.e. 02.04.2019.
c) The respondents rely upon paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 9.0
of the General/Important Instructions contained in CEN No.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
02/2019 to contend that the candidates were specifically
cautioned to satisfy themselves regarding their eligibility before
submitting the online application. It was expressly provided that
eligibility would be determined with reference to the
information furnished in the online application and the
eligibility conditions obtaining on the closing date. The
respondents, therefore, contend that the responsibility to
possess and produce a valid disability certificate in the
prescribed form rested upon the applicant himself.
d) It is specifically pleaded that the disability certificate relied
upon by the applicant as Annexure A-5 was issued on
11.04.2019, i.e. after the closing date for submission of the
online application. The respondents dispute the applicant’s
assertion regarding the date and nature of the said certificate
and maintain that, on the relevant date, he was not in possession
of a valid certificate certifying permanent benchmark disability
in the prescribed format of Annexure V(B). According to them,
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
the certificate actually produced at document verification
reflected that the disability was temporary in nature.
e) The respondents further submit that the mere issuance of an e-
call letter and permitting the applicant to participate in the
Computer Based Test did not amount to final acceptance of his
eligibility. The candidature of every candidate continued to
remain provisional and subject to verification of the
information furnished in the online application as well as
scrutiny of the original documents at the stage of document
verification. Thus, according to the respondents, successful
participation in the earlier stages of selection did not confer any
indefeasible right upon the applicant to be selected or
appointed.
f) It is also the stand of the respondents that the applicant had
declared permanent benchmark disability while submitting his
online application, whereas the document produced by him at
the verification stage showed temporary disability. They allege
that this material fact had not been correctly disclosed by the
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 15 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
applicant and that such discrepancy rendered his candidature
liable to rejection in terms of the relevant provisions of CEN
No. 02/2019. In particular, reliance has been placed upon
paragraph 15.3(e) of the notification governing
rejection/cancellation of candidature where the information
furnished by the candidate is found to be incorrect or
inconsistent with the supporting documents.
g) According to the respondents, paragraph 15.2 of CEN No.
02/2019 had afforded candidates an opportunity to make
permissible minor modifications in their applications. The
applicant, however, did not avail himself of the said
opportunity. Consequently, at the stage of document
verification his candidature was examined on the basis of the
information furnished in the online application and the
documents actually produced by him.
h) The respondents further rely upon paragraph 17.3 of CEN No.
02/2019 to contend that no additional time could be granted to a
candidate for production of the requisite original documents at
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 16 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
document verification. Therefore, according to them, once the
applicant failed to produce a valid permanent disability
certificate in the prescribed format at the relevant stage, he
could not subsequently cure the deficiency by relying upon a
certificate obtained at a later point of time.
i) It is further pleaded that paragraphs 18.2 and 18.3 of CEN No.
02/2019 empower the Railway Recruitment Board to cancel or
forfeit the candidature of a candidate in the event of deliberate
suppression of information or furnishing of incorrect particulars
in order to secure an undue benefit. The respondents have also
referred to paragraph 19.2 of the notification, according to
which the decision of the Railway Recruitment Board
concerning eligibility, acceptance or rejection of online
applications is final and binding upon the candidates.
j) The respondents also rely upon the declaration furnished by the
applicant along with his online application, wherein he affirmed
that he had gone through the eligibility criteria, fulfilled all
requirements for the post applied for, and that the particulars
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 17 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
furnished by him were true and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief. The declaration further contemplated
disqualification in the event of any information being found
incorrect at any stage of recruitment. On this basis, the
respondents contend that the applicant was bound by the
particulars furnished by him and could not subsequently seek to
alter the basis of his eligibility.
k) In the para-wise reply, the respondents reiterate that the
certificate relied upon by the applicant was neither a valid
permanent disability certificate available to him on the closing
date nor was it produced in the requisite format stipulated under
CEN No. 02/2019. They deny that issuance of an e-call letter or
shortlisting for document verification amounted to acceptance
of his claim under the PwBD category and maintain that the
candidature remained subject to scrutiny and verification
throughout the recruitment process.
l) The respondents further state that a temporary disability
certificate is issued in cases where the disability is capable of
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 18 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
variation or there exists a possibility of recovery and, therefore,
such a certificate could not, according to them, be treated at par
with the permanent benchmark disability certificate required for
claiming reservation under the notification. They maintain that
the applicant could not derive an advantage from a permanent
disability certificate obtained subsequently, as eligibility had to
be determined with reference to the cut-off date prescribed in
the recruitment notification.
m) The respondents have also referred to judicial precedents,
including a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 7677 of 2021 and a decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.
No. 4739/2015, in support of their stand that the prescribed
eligibility conditions and requirements of the recruitment
notification have to be strictly adhered to.
n) On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents maintain that the
candidature of the applicant was rightly rejected in accordance
with CEN No. 02/2019 and that no illegality or arbitrariness can
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 19 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
be attributed to their action. They accordingly pray for
dismissal of the Original Application as being devoid of merit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made
by them.
5. The present Original Application has been instituted under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the applicant
seeks quashing of communication No. RRB/J-S/Court-case/2021
dated 27.05.2021 issued by respondent No.2. He further seeks a
direction to the respondents to physically examine him for
determining whether his locomotor disability is permanent or
temporary and to keep one post of Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-
III advertised under CEN No.02/2019 reserved for him.
6. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The applicant applied for
the post of Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-III pursuant to CEN
No.02/2019 under the category of Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities (PwBD), declaring 40% locomotor disability. He was
permitted to participate in the Computer Based Test held on
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 20 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
29.07.2019 and, upon qualifying, was shortlisted for document
verification and medical examination. At the stage of document
verification, however, the disability certificate produced by him
reflected his disability as temporary, whereupon he was not permitted
to proceed further for medical examination.
7. The principal contention of the applicant is that his locomotor
disability was permanent from its inception and that its description as
“temporary” in the earlier certificate was not determinative of its true
nature. He relies heavily upon the subsequent Unique Disability
ID/certificate dated 10.03.2021, wherein his disability was assessed at
45% and described as permanent. On this premise, he submits that the
respondents ought to have physically examined him through their
Medical Board instead of rejecting his candidature merely on the basis
of the earlier certificate.
8. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that recruitment under
CEN No.02/2019 was governed strictly by the terms and conditions
stipulated therein. The candidate was required to possess the requisite
eligibility as on the prescribed cut-off date and to produce a valid
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 21 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
disability certificate in the prescribed format. According to them, the
applicant did not possess the requisite permanent disability certificate
on the relevant date and the certificate produced by him at document
verification itself described his disability as temporary. The
subsequent certificate issued in 2021, therefore, could not
retrospectively cure the deficiency existing during the recruitment
process.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, we find substance in the
stand taken by the respondents. It is a settled principle governing
public recruitment that eligibility of a candidate has to be examined
with reference to the conditions contained in the recruitment
notification and the cut-off date prescribed therein. A candidate who
does not fulfil an essential eligibility requirement on the relevant date
cannot ordinarily acquire eligibility retrospectively on the strength of
a document or qualification obtained subsequently.
10. CEN No.02/2019 itself required candidates claiming the benefit of
reservation as Persons with Benchmark Disabilities to possess not less
than 40% of the relevant benchmark disability and to submit the
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 22 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
prescribed disability certificate issued by the competent authority. The
notification further stipulated that the existing disability certificates
would remain valid for the period specified therein. Thus, production
of an appropriate and valid certificate was not an empty procedural
formality; it constituted the documentary basis upon which
entitlement to the benefit of PwBD reservation was to be determined.
The applicant himself relies upon Clause 11.3 of the notification in
this regard.
11. Admittedly, the certificate available with and produced by the
applicant during the relevant recruitment process described his
disability as temporary. It was only subsequently, on 10.03.2021, that
another Unique Disability ID came to be issued recording the
applicant’s disability as 45% and permanent. The subsequent
certificate may establish the applicant’s status as on the date of its
issuance, but, in the absence of anything in the recruitment
notification permitting retrospective validation, it cannot
automatically be read backwards so as to alter his eligibility status for
a selection process governed by an earlier cut-off date.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 23 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
12. The submission that the respondents ought to have constituted or
referred the applicant to a Medical Board for determining whether his
disability was, in fact, permanent also does not persuade us. The
purpose of medical examination in a recruitment process cannot be
enlarged to permit a candidate to cure a foundational deficiency in the
eligibility documents required under the recruitment notification.
Where the notification requires a particular certificate issued by the
competent authority, the recruiting agency cannot be compelled to
disregard that requirement and independently reconstruct the
candidate’s eligibility through a subsequent medical assessment.
13. Equally untenable is the argument that because the applicant was
permitted to participate in the Computer Based Test and was
thereafter shortlisted for document verification, the respondents were
precluded from questioning his eligibility. Shortlisting or participation
in various stages of a recruitment process does not crystallize into a
right to appointment. Verification of eligibility and supporting
documents is itself an integral stage of recruitment. A defect or
deficiency discovered during such verification can legitimately result
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 24 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
in rejection of candidature notwithstanding the candidate’s successful
performance in an earlier examination.
14. Indeed, the very fact that the applicant was called for document
verification indicates that his candidature up to that stage was
provisional and subject to verification of the documents on which his
claim of eligibility and reservation rested. Merely because his roll
number appeared amongst the candidates shortlisted for document
verification and medical examination did not amount to final
acceptance of his eligibility under the PwBD category.
15. Much emphasis has also been placed upon the fact that two posts
reserved for PwBD candidates were stated to be lying vacant. This
circumstance does not advance the applicant’s case. Availability of a
vacancy cannot dilute an essential eligibility condition. A vacancy can
be filled only by a candidate who satisfies the prescribed conditions of
recruitment. Neither the recruiting authority nor this Tribunal can
modify the eligibility criteria merely because a reserved vacancy has
remained unfilled.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 25 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
16. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A.
No.61/665/2021. The said O.A. was disposed of on 15.04.2021 with a
direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation
dated 17.03.2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
Significantly, no positive direction for appointment or for treating the
applicant as eligible was issued. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2
considered the matter and passed the impugned communication dated
27.05.2021. The record shows that the respondents took note of the
disability certificate produced during the recruitment process, the
medical memo and the opinion of the concerned Railway Medical
Authority that the applicant was having temporary disability and
could not be examined under the handicapped quota. Merely because
the decision taken on consideration of the representation did not
accord with the expectation of the applicant would not render such
consideration illegal.
17. Judicial review in matters of recruitment is concerned with the legality
of the decision-making process and not with substituting the eligibility
conditions prescribed by the recruiting authority. Once the terms of
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 26 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
the advertisement prescribe the relevant eligibility requirements, they
must ordinarily be applied uniformly to all candidates. Granting an
exception to one candidate by allowing a subsequently obtained
certificate to retrospectively cure the deficiency would itself have the
potential of compromising equality amongst candidates who
participated in the same selection process.
18. We are also unable to accept the contention that the subsequent
certification of the disability as permanent conclusively establishes
that the applicant necessarily possessed the same certified status on
the cut-off date. There is an evident distinction between the existence
of a physical condition and possession of the requisite certification for
claiming a statutory or recruitment benefit. For the purposes of the
recruitment in question, the respondents were entitled to proceed on
the basis of the certificate required under CEN No.02/2019 and
available at the relevant stage.
19. The Tribunal, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot
rewrite the recruitment notification or create an exception to its
eligibility conditions on considerations of individual hardship.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 27 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
Recruitment to public employment must be governed by uniform
standards, and any relaxation not contemplated by the governing
notification may operate to the prejudice of other candidates who
abided by its requirements.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant has
failed to establish any arbitrariness, discrimination or illegality
warranting interference with the impugned communication dated
27.05.2021. The subsequent permanent disability certificate cannot,
by itself, confer retrospective eligibility upon the applicant for the
recruitment process initiated under CEN No.02/2019, nor can the
existence of an unfilled vacancy create a right to appointment contrary
to the prescribed eligibility conditions.
21. Accordingly, the Original Application is found to be devoid of merit
and is dismissed. The impugned communication No. RRB/J-S/Court-
case/2021 dated 27.05.2021 does not call for interference by this
Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV
:: 28 :: O.A. No. 1400/2021
22. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the present Original
Application shall not prejudice the applicant’s right to avail the
benefit of his subsequently issued permanent disability certificate in
any future recruitment process, subject to his fulfilling the eligibility
conditions prescribed therein.
23. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV