Courts cannot substitute their view for competent medical-board findings on fitness.

The applicant, a Track Maintainer-II in the N.F. Railway, developed serious back-related medical problems and was found medically unfit for the heavy physical duties of his post by the Divisional Medical Committee on 28 October 2020, although he continued to remain in medical category A-3.

As no suitable light-duty post was available in his parent cadre, he was placed under the Personnel Department and was initially offered alternative employment as Tech-II/Carpenter.

Pursuant to his request for a category change, he was offered and joined the post of Junior Clerk in the Personnel Department by order dated 16 September 2024.

In February 2025, the respondents directed the applicant to undergo a re-medical examination.

The Divisional Medical Committee examined him on 17 March 2025 and concluded that no further light-duty recommendation was necessary, while finding him medically fit in category A-3.

Relying on that opinion, the respondents issued Order No. E/283/LMG/EQ/2025/Pt.I dated 21 April 2025, relieving him from the post of Junior Clerk and directing him to report to his parent cadre as Track Maintainer-II.

The applicant challenged the re-medical examination and the repatriation order, seeking retention as Junior Clerk and the associated benefits.

Whether the respondents’ direction requiring the applicant to undergo a re-medical examination was illegal or contrary to the applicable railway rules?

Whether the applicant, having been offered the post of Junior Clerk as alternative employment after medical de-categorisation, was entitled to continue in that post?

Whether the order dated 21 April 2025 directing the applicant to return to his parent cadre as Track Maintainer-II was liable to be quashed?

The Tribunal considered Rule 561(A)(2) and Rule 561(A)(4) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, which concern the provision of light duty and the placement of an employee on the sick list where suitable light duty is unavailable.

It also relied upon Rules 1301–1304 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, governing medical de-categorisation and the provision of alternative employment to Railway servants who become physically incapable of performing their original duties.

The Tribunal further applied the applicable medical re-examination schedule, under which employees in medical categories A-1 to A-3 are ordinarily re-examined every four years if below 45 years and every two years if above 45 but below 55 years.

The governing principle applied was that a court or tribunal should not ordinarily substitute its own assessment for the opinion of a duly constituted medical expert committee in the absence of grounds warranting interference.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ reliance on the prescribed re-examination schedule and held that the applicant’s re-medical examination was conducted pursuant to the applicable medical-service provisions.

The subsequent Medical Board did not recommend any further light-duty arrangement and found that the applicant’s medical status had not changed; he remained fit in category A-3.

Since the competent medical authority had found him fit for the duties of his original cadre, the Tribunal declined to reassess or substitute its view for that of the medical experts.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no legal basis to interfere with the respondents’ decision to relieve the applicant from the Personnel Department and direct him to resume duties as a Track Maintainer-II.

It upheld the validity of the re-medical examination and the order dated 21 April 2025 directing his return to the parent Track Maintainer cadre, finding no merit in the challenge to the respondents’ action.

The Original Application was dismissed, the interim order dated 20 May 2025 was vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.