Candidature rejection based on prior medical unfitness without conducting a fresh medical examination is impermissible.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Track Maintainer in the Northern Railway under medical category ‘Bee One’ in 2014, applied for the post of Assistant Station Master (ASM) via the General Department Competitive Examination (GDCE) pursuant to Notification No. 03/2016/GDCE

The post required an ‘Aye Two’ (A-2) medical fitness standard

The applicant successfully cleared the written examination and the aptitude test, securing 73.34 marks, which was above the cut-off

However, the respondents rejected his candidature on November 20, 2017, without conducting a fresh medical examination, relying solely on a 2014 medical report from his initial induction which declared him unfit for the ‘Aye Two’ category

The applicant challenged this rejection, producing a contemporary medical certificate from a private eye specialist declaring him fit for the ‘Aye Two’ standard

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in rejecting the applicant's candidature based on a prior medical fitness report from a different recruitment cycle instead of conducting a fresh medical examination as per the current notification

2. Whether the "clarificatory notification" dated May 17, 2019, could be applied retrospectively to justify a rejection made in 2017

Clause 14.1 of Notification No. 03/2016/GDCE, which mandates that shortlisted candidates be sent for document verification and "appropriate medical examination"

Precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Arun Kumar Kuldeep (W.P. No. 7941/2024), which established that candidates for ASM/Goods Guard must undergo a fresh medical examination regardless of prior assessments

The doctrine that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed retrospectively and that the state must act as a "model employer"

The Tribunal observed that Clause 14.1 of the recruitment notification explicitly required a fresh medical examination following the selection process

The respondents' reliance on a 2014 medical assessment was deemed erroneous as it bypassed the procedural requirements of the 2016 notification

The Tribunal noted the timeline of events: the applicant qualified in 2017, while the respondents’ "clarificatory notification"—intended to justify the use of prior medical records—was issued only in May 2019

Applying the reasoning from Arun Kumar Kuldeep, the Tribunal held that this 2019 notification could not have been in contemplation at the time of the applicant’s rejection in 2017 and could not be applied retrospectively

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant, having secured marks above the cut-off, was entitled to a fair assessment of his current medical status by a competent medical board

It held that the failure to conduct a fresh medical examination was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment notification

The respondents were directed to subject the applicant to a fresh medical examination by a competent medical board for the ‘Aye Two’ category and, if found fit, to process his selection for the post of ASM in accordance with the law

The Original Application was allowed with no orders as to costs