External medical certificates cannot override Railway authorities’ fitness assessments for safety-category appointments.

The applicant, a course-completed Act Apprentice with hearing impairment, was considered for engagement as a substitute Trackman, a Group ‘D’ safety-category post.

He was found unfit in the prescribed B-1 medical category and, after seeking re-medical examination, was again declared unfit in all medical categories.

The respondents consequently declined his engagement.

Following an earlier proceeding, the respondents rejected his claim by order dated 2 December 2016, which he challenged in this OA, seeking appointment on relaxed suitability standards under disability-related legislation and Railway instructions.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to engage the applicant, after he was found medically unfit on re-examination by Railway Medical Authorities, was arbitrary or unlawful.

Whether the applicant was entitled to disability-related concessions or relaxed suitability standards for engagement as a substitute Trackman.

Under the applicable IREC/IRMM provisions, a candidate must be found medically fit by the competent Railway Medical Authority against the medical standards prescribed for the post; a certificate from another medical institution does not replace that assessment.

Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the cited Railway Board and DoPT instructions were invoked by the applicant in support of disability-related concessions.

The Tribunal held that those concessions did not permit dispensing with the prescribed medical fitness requirements for this safety-category engagement and found that the applicant did not qualify for the claimed concessions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received the prescribed appellate re-medical examination and was again declared unfit, this time in all medical categories.

Because fitness had to be assessed by the competent Railway Medical Authority, the certificate from the Government hospital could not substitute for the Railway assessment.

The Tribunal further treated the engagement as a stop-gap arrangement subject to the applicable eligibility and medical requirements, and held that the applicant’s apprentice status and claimed disability concessions did not justify relaxing those requirements.

It also found no evidence that similarly situated candidates had been treated differently.

It held that the refusal to engage him was not arbitrary or discriminatory and found no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 2 December 2016, it dismissed the OA without an order as to costs.