Medical appellate boards must be independently constituted; prior examining doctors cannot reassess the candidate.

The applicant applied for appointment as Junior Engineer (Diesel Mechanical), Level-6, pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice No. 03/2018 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board.

After clearing both Computer Based Tests, he underwent medical examination at Railway Hospital, Kalyan, and was declared fit in the B-1 medical category in December 2019; he was subsequently placed on the waiting list.

Following delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, the waiting list was cleared in August 2022 and the applicant was shortlisted for appointment.

He was thereafter examined under the A-3 category and declared unfit on account of defective vision.

Since the recruitment notification prescribed the B-1 standard, he was re-examined under B-1 and again declared unfit.

The applicant relied on medical reports, including an AIIMS report dated 10 April 2023, which allegedly recorded vision of 6/6 and 6/9 and supported his fitness under the B-1 standard.

The respondents maintained that the applicant had been examined by duly constituted medical boards and had also undertaken that his candidature would not be considered if he was found medically unfit.

During the proceedings, it emerged that the appellate/re-medical board included Dr. Anukool Deshpande, who had participated in an earlier medical examination, and that another ophthalmologist from the earlier board had also participated in the subsequent examination.

The applicant challenged the order dated 20 April 2023 declaring him medically unfit and sought consideration of his earlier fitness, an independent medical examination, and appointment if found fit.

Whether the applicant’s appellate/re-medical examination was valid when the board included doctors who had participated in his earlier medical examination, contrary to the requirement of a separate medical board under the applicable Railway policy?

Whether the applicant’s medical suitability for the B-1 category could be conclusively determined by applying the earlier absolute bar against candidates who had undergone refractive surgery, notwithstanding the subsequent Railway policy permitting such candidates to be considered fit subject to conditions?

Whether the applicant was entitled to an independent medical examination by a specialised government medical institution and consequential appointment if found fit?

The Tribunal applied Clause IX of the Railway Board’s policy dated 31 December 2015 concerning appeals by non-Gazetted candidates against medical unfitness, under which the competent medical authority may order re-examination by a separate three-member medical board comprising senior specialists, including the specialist concerned.

It also considered IRMM paragraph 512(9), which contained the erstwhile absolute bar concerning candidates who had undergone refractive surgery.

The Tribunal relied on Dalbir Etc. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1037, where the Supreme Court directed fresh examination by an appropriate medical board to determine the present suitability of candidates after refractive surgery.

Pursuant thereto, the Railway Board’s order dated 25 August 2022 permitted candidates who had undergone LASIK/refractive surgery to be declared fit in B-1 and B-2 categories, subject to prescribed conditions.

The governing principle was that medical suitability must be assessed by a properly constituted, independent and competent board under the medical standards applicable on the date of assessment.

The Tribunal found that the appellate/re-medical process was procedurally defective because the board was not genuinely separate: Dr. Anukool Deshpande, who had participated in the earlier examination, was included in the subsequent board, and the record also showed the participation of another ophthalmologist from the earlier examination.

The respondents’ argument that Dr. Deshpande was only the junior-most member did not cure the defect, since Clause IX required reconsideration by a separate three-member board comprising senior specialists.

The Tribunal further held that the relevant question was the applicant’s fitness for the B-1 category, not the higher A-3 category.

Since the Railway Board’s order dated 25 August 2022 had superseded the earlier absolute prohibition on refractive-surgery candidates for B-1 and B-2 posts, and that policy was in force when the applicant was examined on 9 January 2023, the appellate board’s conclusion could not be treated as final.

In light of the procedural irregularity and the need for specialised assessment of the applicant’s present visual suitability, an independent examination by an AIIMS ophthalmic board was considered appropriate.

The respondents were directed to request the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, to constitute an independent medical board within 30 days of receiving the certified order.

The AIIMS board was directed to submit its opinion within 45 days of receiving the request.

If the applicant were found medically suitable for the concerned B-1 post, the respondents were directed to grant consequential appointment within a further 30 days.

The applicant was required to produce all available medical records and cooperate with the examination.

The O.A. and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of without costs.