Medical fitness alone confers no indefeasible right to appointment absent requisite merit.

The applicant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, participated in the recruitment process initiated by Northern Railway under Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2012 for Group ‘D’ posts.

He secured 77.33 marks and was declared medically fit in the relevant lower medical categories. His candidature was not included for appointment.

By communication dated 25 November/8 December 2016, the Railway Recruitment Cell informed him that medically fit candidates in the B-2/C-1/C-2 categories could not be appointed due to non-availability of posts and were not provisionally empanelled.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed the respondents to disclose the relevant vacancy position and the applicant’s comparative merit.

The respondents filed an affidavit stating that the applicant’s marks were below the marks of the last selected candidate in each category: 77.67 for B-2, 78.59 for C-1, and 84.33 for C-2.

The respondents further stated that no candidate with marks lower than the applicant’s had been appointed in the relevant categories.

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection/non-selection of the applicant’s candidature was arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful despite his medical fitness.

2. Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable right to appointment merely by being declared medically fit in the relevant medical categories.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment on the basis of the decision in OA No. 117/2017, relied upon by him.

The Tribunal applied the principle that medical fitness is only a condition of eligibility and does not create an indefeasible right to appointment where the candidate does not fall within the prescribed merit position.

Appointment in a recruitment process is governed by comparative merit, the applicable cut-off, available vacancies, and the terms of the recruitment notice.

The Tribunal also relied on the settled principle that judicial review is not warranted where the recruiting authority demonstrates, through credible comparative merit material, that the candidate was lower in merit than the last selected candidate and that no lower-merit candidate was appointed.

The coordinate Bench decision in OA No. 117/2017 was distinguished on the basis of the different factual position disclosed in the present case.

The applicant’s score of 77.33 was lower than the last selected candidate’s score in all three medical categories for which he was eligible—B-2, C-1, and C-2.

The respondents’ affidavit specifically attributed the non-selection to the applicant’s lower merit position and asserted that no candidate with a score below 77.33 had been appointed.

The applicant did not controvert these assertions or produce material showing that a lower-merit candidate had been selected.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness, discrimination, or unfair treatment in the respondents’ decision.

Since medical fitness alone did not override the comparative merit requirement, the applicant was not entitled to appointment.

The reliance on OA No. 117/2017 was rejected as inapplicable because the factual circumstances were materially different.

Finding no ground to interfere with the rejection of his candidature, the Tribunal dismissed OA No. 93/2017.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.