Colour vision deficiency cannot disqualify candidates for promotion to non-safety Assistant Commercial Manager posts.

The applicant, a Commercial Supervisor in Northern Railway, participated in the 30% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the Group ‘B’ post of Assistant Commercial Manager (Technical).

Although he qualified in the written examination, he was declared medically unfit due to partial colour-vision deficiency by communication dated 21 December 2022 and was consequently not called for the viva voce.

The applicant challenged the medical disqualification, contending that the post of Assistant Commercial Manager was a non-safety post and that prescribing colour-perception standards under Paras 530(a) and 532 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual had no rational nexus with the duties of the post.

He relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Paras Ram Kakkar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 6766/2022, decided on 23 January 2025, and the dismissal of the respondents’ review petition on 9 January 2026.

The respondents substantially accepted the similarity between the present case and Paras Ram Kakkar, but submitted that the High Court judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Diary) No. 35547/2026. They requested that any relief be made subject to the outcome of that proceeding.

1. Whether the applicant could be declared medically unfit and excluded from the further stages of selection for the post of Assistant Commercial Manager solely on account of partial colour-vision deficiency, when the post was treated as a non-safety category post?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the same relaxation and consequential relief granted by the Delhi High Court in Paras Ram Kakkar v. Union of India & Ors.?

3. Whether the relief granted to the applicant should be made subject to the outcome of the pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court?

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board’s letter dated 9 April 2007, which permitted medical relaxation in appropriate cases, and Railway Board Instruction No. 2004-E(SCT)1/25/20 dated 31 July 2013, which clarified that the Group ‘B’ post of Assistant Commercial Manager (Transportation) was a non-safety category post.

It relied principally on the binding judgment of the Delhi High Court in Paras Ram Kakkar v. Union of India & Ors., which held that colour-vision deficiency could not, in the circumstances of that case, defeat the candidate’s claim for consideration for a non-safety ACM post; the Court granted treatment as medically fit, notional appointment and consequential refixation of pensionary and retiral benefits, while denying back wages.

The Tribunal further relied on the High Court’s review judgment, which reiterated that the 31 July 2013 Railway Board instruction was clarificatory and applicable to the selection in question.

The Tribunal found that the legal controversy was substantially identical to that decided in Paras Ram Kakkar, and that the Delhi High Court’s ruling was binding upon it.

Since the ACM post was to be treated as non-safety and the Railway Board’s instructions permitted relaxation in appropriate cases, the applicant’s exclusion solely for partial colour-vision deficiency was held unsustainable.

The applicant had already qualified in the written examination, and his failure to undergo the viva voce resulted only from the impugned medical disqualification; therefore, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to extend the same consequential relief granted in Paras Ram Kakkar, rather than deny relief on the ground that the viva voce had not been conducted.

In view of the pending SLP, the Tribunal directed that implementation of its order remain subject to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The communication dated 21 December 2022 declaring the applicant medically unfit was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to treat the applicant as medically fit for the selection, consider him for promotion to Assistant Commercial Manager under the 30% LDCE quota, and extend the relief granted in Paras Ram Kakkar.

The applicant was granted notional promotion, notional pay fixation, and consequential revision of pensionary and retiral benefits, but no back wages.

The directions were to be implemented within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order and were expressly made subject to the outcome of SLP (Diary) No. 35547/2026 before the Supreme Court.

No order as to costs was made.