IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 903 of 2009
Rajesh Ranjan ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi Railway
3. Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi
... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
------
For the Petitioner: Mrs. M.M. Pal
For the Respondents: Mr. Mahesh Tiwari
------
Reserved on: 11.01.2010 Pronounced on: 15th January, 2010
M. Y. Eqbal, J. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
Railway.
2. In the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
that part of the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Ranchi in O.A. No.192 of 2006 whereby the
claim of the petitioner for alternative appointment has been rejected
holding that the candidates selected for the category of Assistant
Driver/ASM/Motorman are not eligible for any alternative appointment
in view of the Railway Circular dated 4.9.2001.
3. It appears that pursuant to the notice issued in the newspaper
dated 17.8.2004 for filling up the post of Assistant Station Master, the
petitioner applied for and was selected after he was declared passed in
the written examination. The petitioner was then called for aptitude test
on 3.10.2005. The petitioner was thereafter informed by letter dated
5.1.2006
that he was not qualified in the vision test for the post of
Assistant Station Master. The petitioner was also given liberty to file
representation to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board along with a
medical (vision) certificate. The petitioner sent his representation to the
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi on 8.4.2006 along with a
vision certificate, but the representation could not reach the office on or
before the date fixed i.e. 10.4.2006. The petitioner then gave
representation for consideration of his case and, thereafter, moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents contested the claim of
the petitioner stating inter alia that although he was found eligible in the
aptitude test, but he was not found fit in the vision test. It was argued by
the petitioner before the Tribunal that if he is not found fit in the vision
2
test, he should be considered for the post of other alternative job, which
was not agreed to by the respondents. The Tribunal considered the
Railway Board Circular dated 4.9.2001 and held that in the circular, it is
clearly mentioned that candidates selected in the category of Assistant
Driver, will also not be eligible for other alternative appointment, if the
do not finally selected in the final medical examination. However, the
Tribunal held that since the respondents have not considered his
representation for re-examination of the vision, it will be proper to make
re-examination of vision of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Station
Master. Although, he was selected in the written examination and
aptitude test, but he was found unfit in the vision test. The petitioner
filed representation along with a vision certificate, but because of the
delay in the receipt of the representation, the same was not considered.
The Tribunal, therefore, while disposing the application, directed the
respondents to consider his representation for re-examination of his
vision. The contention of Mrs. Pal is that in the event he is found unfit in
the vision test, his case should be considered for alternative
appointment.
4. After having considered the circular dated 4.9.2001, we do not
find any justification to issue direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for alternative appointment. It is well settled that a
writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the authority to consider
the case of a candidate for appointment bye-passing the circular which
restricts such appointment. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in
holding that the applicant cannot be considered for alternative
appointment.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this application
which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
Pradeep Kumar, J.
(Pradeep Kumar, J)
Manoj/ N.A.F.R.