A subsequent permanent disability certificate cannot retrospectively cure ineligibility under a recruitment notification.

The Railway Recruitment Board issued CEN No. 02/2019 for paramedical posts, including Health & Malaria Inspector Grade-III, with suitability for persons with locomotor disabilities.

The applicant applied under the PwBD category, claiming 40% locomotor disability, and was permitted to participate in the Computer Based Test. After qualifying, he was shortlisted for document verification and medical examination.

At document verification, the disability certificate produced by him described his disability as temporary, and he was not permitted to undergo the medical examination.

The respondents rejected his claim on the ground that CEN No. 02/2019 required a permanent benchmark disability certificate in the prescribed form.

The applicant subsequently obtained a disability certificate dated 10.03.2021 recording 45% permanent locomotor disability and contended that the certificate merely clarified the permanent nature of his pre-existing disability.

In an earlier O.A. No. 61/665/2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation. The respondents thereafter rejected his claim by communication dated 27.05.2021.

He challenged that communication and sought medical examination and consideration against an unfilled PwBD vacancy.

Whether the applicant could claim PwBD reservation in the recruitment under CEN No. 02/2019 when the disability certificate produced during document verification described his disability as temporary and was not the prescribed permanent disability certificate.

Whether the subsequent disability certificate dated 10.03.2021, certifying 45% permanent disability, could retrospectively cure the alleged deficiency existing on the relevant cut-off date.

Whether the respondents were required to refer the applicant for physical examination by a Railway Medical Board before rejecting his candidature.

Whether the existence of two unfilled PwBD vacancies entitled the applicant to consideration or appointment notwithstanding the prescribed eligibility requirements.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the applicant’s original application.

It applied the settled principle that eligibility in public recruitment must be determined in accordance with the recruitment notification and the prescribed cut-off date; a subsequent document or qualification ordinarily cannot retrospectively confer eligibility.

Under CEN No. 02/2019, a candidate claiming PwBD reservation was required to possess at least 40% benchmark disability and produce a valid disability certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format.

The notification also made candidature provisional until verification of eligibility and original documents, and permitted rejection where the particulars furnished were incorrect, inconsistent, or unsupported by the required documents.

Participation in earlier recruitment stages does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, and an unfilled vacancy cannot dilute an essential eligibility condition.

Judicial review does not permit the Tribunal to rewrite recruitment conditions or create exceptions not contemplated by the notification.

The applicant’s eligibility had to be assessed with reference to CEN No. 02/2019 and the documents required during the recruitment process.

The certificate available at document verification described his disability as temporary, whereas the notification required documentary proof of the requisite benchmark disability for claiming PwBD reservation.

The certificate issued on 10.03.2021 could establish the applicant’s status on or after its issuance, but there was no provision in the notification permitting it to operate retrospectively and validate his eligibility for the earlier selection.

The Tribunal further held that a medical examination could not be used to reconstruct or cure the foundational documentary eligibility requirement imposed by the notification.

His participation in the Computer Based Test and shortlisting were provisional and did not prevent scrutiny at document verification.

Finally, the unfilled PwBD posts did not authorise relaxation of the eligibility criteria or create a right to appointment.

The subsequent permanent disability certificate could not, by itself, confer retrospective eligibility for the CEN No. 02/2019 recruitment, and the respondents were not obliged to subject him to a fresh physical medical examination for that purpose.

The Original Application was dismissed, and communication No. RRB/J-S/Court-case/2021 dated 27.05.2021 was upheld.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.

The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the applicant’s right to rely on his subsequently issued permanent disability certificate in any future recruitment, subject to the eligibility conditions applicable in that recruitment.