S.K.M.Haider vs Union Of India & Ors

S.K.M. Haider .... Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. A short question that arises for consideration in this

appeal, by special leave, is as to whether the appellant has been

rightly denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector (TCR),

Group `C' post, on account of his having not been declared

medically fit in Class B-2 under Para 510 of Indian Railway Medical

Manual (for short, `IRMM').

3. The appellant--S.K.M. Haider--joined the service in

Northern Railway as Luggage Porter, Group `D' post, on December

1

3, 1991. The next channel of promotion from Luggage Porter is to

the post of Ticket Collector. Having acquired eligibility for promotion

to the post of Ticket Collector, the appellant appeared in the written

test held by the respondents on January 8, 2003. He was successful

in the written test and was called for viva-voce by the Interview

Committee on February 25, 2003. On June 24, 2003, a provisional

list of the candidates who were found suitable for the post of Ticket

Collector on the basis of written test and viva voce was prepared in

which the appellant's name was placed at Serial No. 25.

4. On July 3, 2003, the appellant appeared before the

Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ambala

Cantt. (Respondent No. 3) for medical examination but he was not

declared fit in Class B-2.

5. The appellant challenged the medical report dated July

3, 2003 by filing an appeal before the Chief Medical Director,

Northern Railway. He was asked to appear before the Medical

Board on September 15, 2004. The Medical Board found the

appellant fit in Class C-2 with glasses. Based on the opinion of the

Medical Board, the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the

medical report dated July 3, 2003 was rejected.

2 6. The appellant then got himself examined at All India

Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on November 3, 2004 and it

is his case that he was found medically fit in Class B-2.

7. The appellant aggrieved by his non-promotion to the

post of Ticket Collector approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, `the Tribunal'). The Tribunal,

on February 8, 2006, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and

the counsel for respondents, rejected the original application filed by

the appellant.

8. Being not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the

appellant moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for

redressal of his grievance but there, too, he was unsuccessful and

the writ petition filed by him was dismissed on March 21, 2009.

9. Para 510 in Chapter V of the IRMM deals with

classification of staff for the purpose of vision tests of

candidates and of serving Railway employees. It reads as follows :

"510. Classification of staff:-

(1) for the purpose of visual acuity and general physical

examination of candidates and of serving Railway employees, the

non-Gazetted Railway services are divided into the following broad

groups and classes. The detailed categories of Railway posts

3

under each of the classes/groups mentioned below are given

in Annexure IV to this chapter:-

Groups Classes

A Vision tests A-1 Foot plate staff, Rail car

required in the drivers and Navigating

interest of public staff (For foot plate staff

safety see para 520)

A-2. Other running staff, Other

shunting staff, Point

lockers, Station masters,

and other staff in operative

control of signals.

A-3 Loco, signal and

Transportation Inspectors,

staff authroised to work

trolleys, Yard supervisory

staff, Road motor drivers

and gate keepers on level

crossings.

B. Vision tests B-1 Such station and yard non

required in the supervisory, shed and

interest of the other staff, excluding shed

employee himself man, as are engaged on

or his fellow duties where failing eye

workers or both sight may endanger

themselves or other

employees from moving

vehicles, Road Motor

drivers, permanent Way

Mistries, Gang mates,

Keymen and staff of the

Railway Protection Force.

B-2 Certain staff in workshops

and engine rooms

engaged on duties when

failing eye sight may

4

endanger themselves or

other employees from

moving parts of the

machinery and crane

drivers on open line.

C Vision tests C-1 Other workshop and

required in the engine room staff, shed

interest of stockers and other staff in

administration whom a higher standard of

only vision than is required in

clerical and kindred

occupation is necessary

for reasons of efficiency

and others not coming in

Group A or B

C-2 Staff in clerical

occupations not included

in A, B and C-1

(2) As the foot-plate staff have to pay sustained attention, it is

necessary to have separate standards for these staff. These

are enumerated in para 520 below."

10. The standards of visual acuity requirements are set out

in Para 512 of IRMM. The relevant extract of that provision is as

follows:

"Class Distant Vision Near Vision

A-1 x x xx xx The combined vision with

or without glasses should

be the ability to read

ordinary print. Where

reading or close work is

required, the combined

near vision should be Sn.

0.6

5

A-2 x x xx xx

A-3 x x xx xx

B-1 6/12, 6/24 with or without As above

glasses. Power of lenses

not to exceed 8 D.

B-2 As above As above

C-1 6/18, nil or combined 6/18 Sn. 0.6 with or without

with or without glasses. glasses where reading or

close work is required.

C-2 6/24, nil or 6/24 combined As above.

with or without glasses".

11. It would be seen from Para 510 of IRMM that non-

Gazetted Railway services have been divided into three broad

groups, namely, groups `A', `B' and `C' for the purpose of vision

tests. These three groups have been divided into different classes.

Group A has been divided in Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 while groups

B and C have been divided in two Classes each, viz; B-1, B-2 and

C-1, C-2 respectively. The division of groups, A, B and C for vision

tests appears to have been made keeping in mind the objective, viz;

`in the interest of public safety'; `in the interest of the employee

himself or his fellow workers or both' and `in the interest of

administration only'. The classification of different staff in various

6

`classes' is apparently founded to achieve the above objective. The

detailed categories of Railway posts under each of the

classes/groups are given in Annexure IV appended to Chapter V.

Insofar as post of Ticket Collector is concerned, it is categorized in

Class B-2 under the head `station supervisory and artisan staff'.

12. Though post of Ticket Collector is categorised in

Annexure IV in Class B-2 but while doing so the underlying object of

division of staff into three broad groups A, B and C for vision tests of

candidates and of serving Railway employees in non-Gazetted

Railway services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly, Class

B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms engaged

on duties. It has been so done because failing eyesight may

endanger themselves or other employees from moving parts of the

machinery and crane drivers on open line. This is in consonance

with the objective of group B viz; `in the interest of the employee

himself or his fellow workers or both'. Insofar as Ticket Collectors

are concerned, vision tests for them are not required `in the interest

of employee himself or his fellow workers or both' as contemplated

in group B but it is required in the interest of administration only -

the objective contemplated in group C. In this view of the matter,

7

there seems to be no rational basis, in relation to the object set out

in Para 510 of IRMM, of categorizing the post of Ticket Collectors

under Class B-2 in Annexure IV. However, it is for the respondents

to have a fresh look insofar as categorisation of posts pertaining to

non-Gazetted Railway services in Annexure IV is concerned.

Suffice it to say that categorization of posts for the purpose of vision

tests must have nexus with the object set out in Para 510. Having

regard to the objective of division of groups/ classes for the purpose

of vision tests under Para 510 of IRMM, the post of Ticket

Collectors can not be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will

be covered by Class C-2. Any inconsistency in categorization of

Railway posts in Annexure IV, in our view, must not operate against

the appellant in getting promotion to the post of Ticket Collector.

13. We hold, as it must be held, that the appellant could not

have been denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector as he

had passed written test and viva voce and was provisionally

selected for the post of Ticket Collector and had been declared

medically fit in Class C-2.

14. Consequently, appeal is allowed; judgment and order

passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 21, 2009

8

and the order dated February 8, 2006 passed by the Central

Administration Tribunal, Chandigarh are set aside. The respondents

shall now consider the appellant's claim for promotion to the post of

Ticket Collector on the basis of his medical fitness in Class C-2 and

his empanelment in the provisional list dated June 24, 2003 and

appropriate order in this regard will be issued within two months from

today. The parties shall bear their own costs.

.........................J.

(Aftab Alam)

........................ J.

(R.M. Lodha)

NEW DELHI.

FEBRUARY 14, 2011.

9