Re-medical examination is not a matter of right and remains within the competent authority's discretion.

The applicant, a candidate for Group ‘D’ posts in Northern Railway, was declared medically unfit in all categories due to "Scoliosis" by the Divisional Medical Committee (DMC) via memo dated 13.05.2019

The applicant contended that he was never supplied the unfit memo and only discovered the grounds for rejection through an RTI response dated 07.09.2021

However, the records indicated that the respondents issued a communication on 20.05.2019 informing the applicant of his "unfit" status and his right to appeal

The applicant subsequently filed an appeal and submitted a private medical certificate from Jyoti Clinic, Delhi, asserting that the Scoliosis was minor and did not cause functional disability

The Appellate Authority (Pr. CMD/NR) considered and rejected the appeal on 22.07.2019, agreeing with the DMC’s findings

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the rejection and for directions to undergo a re-medical examination and subsequent appointment

1. Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to seek a re-medical examination due to the alleged non-supply of the medical unfit memo.

2. Whether the applicant possesses a legal right to demand a re-medical examination based on an independent private medical opinion.

3. Whether the medical condition of "Scoliosis" constitutes a valid disqualification under the relevant railway medical standards.

Para 511-1 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM), 2000, which mandates that candidates must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any defect likely to interfere with the effective performance of duties

the principle that a re-medical examination is not an inherent right but a discretionary power vested in the competent authority, to be exercised based on the facts of each case

the procedural requirement that if a candidate is afforded due opportunity to appeal and the authorities follow the prescribed medical board process (such as a three-member Divisional Medical Committee), the Tribunal’s scope of interference is limited

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's primary contention that he was not informed of his medical unfitness. It noted that the applicant's own actions—specifically filing an appeal on 19.06.2019 mentioning the "unfit" status due to Scoliosis—contradicted his claim that he only learned of the grounds through an RTI in 2021

The Tribunal observed that the respondents followed due process by constituting a Divisional Medical Committee (DMC) comprising three doctors, none of whom were the initial medical examiner, ensuring an unbiased assessment

Regarding the medical condition, the respondents clarified that Scoliosis disrupts natural symmetry and alignment, falling under the prohibitions of Para 511-1 of the IRMM

The Tribunal held that an independent opinion from a private clinic (Jyoti Clinic) is insufficient to override the specialized findings of an official Railway Medical Board

Consequently, the Tribunal found no procedural irregularity or arbitrariness in the respondents' decision-making process.

It concluded that the applicant was afforded due opportunity to contest the medical findings and that the respondents acted within the framework of the IRMM, 2000

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.07.2019/07.09.2021 and dismissed the Original Application (OA), denying the relief for appointment or further medical review

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