The medical board's expert opinion on fitness for service is authoritative and cannot be contested without substantial evidence.

ORDER :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’).

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Traffic Apprentice advertised by the Railway Board. On 03.11.2014 the petitioner was recommended for appointment and was issued provisional appointment on 08.12.2014 which was subject to character verification and medical examination. The petitioner on 03.01.2015 was examined by the medical board and was declared unfit for A-Two category for not having the required parameters of vision. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.05.2015 annexing an eye testing certificate issued by the private doctor (wrongly pleaded in the petition as it being issued by the government hospital). The petitioner approached the tribunal and on dismissal of the application, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the doctor who initially examined the petitioner and found him to be unfit was part of the three member medical board. The contention is that as per the report of May, 2015 given by the private doctor the petitioner had vision of ‘6/6’. The prayer is that the medical board be reconstituted.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned orders and submits that the procedure as prescribed for medical examination was duly followed.

5. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner, lacks merit.

6. There is no malafide, arbitrariness or bias pleaded against the members of medical board. Before the tribunal the respondent and the petitioner had placed reliance upon the policy guidelines dated 31.12.2015. As per the guidelines, in case a candidate was found unfit on the ground of acuity of vision/defective colour vision, the medical examiner shall not issue any certificate and put the findings before the CMO/MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of Unit/Division and candidate shall be immediately examined by a three member medical board. It shall consist of a specialist and in case of non-availability of the specialist a nominated senior doctor and the medical officer who had conducted the first medical examination and the third member being a senior medical officer specially nominated. The board is required to examine the candidate at the earliest after the first examination report. The board after recording the findings shall either endorse or differ from the earlier findings recorded.

7. As per the case set up, the petitioner was examined by the first doctor on 03.01.2015 and on the same day the medical board constituted and examined the petitioner.

8. The contention that the doctor who examined petitioner initially was member of the medical board is noted to be rejected. As per procedure prescribed in guidelines relied upon by petitioner the doctor who found the candidate to be unfit has to be member of the medical board. The tribunal rightly held that the procedure prescribed was duly followed.

9. The report of the medical board is detailed. The medical certificate issued by the private doctor is more of an eye testing report and the examination was not as extensive as undertaken by the medical board. The report given by the private doctor after period of four months of the initial examination by the medical board itself cannot be a ground for reconstituting the medical board.

10. It is settled law that the board constituted of the experts as per the guidelines and policy cannot be doubted and reconstituted for fresh medical examination on mere asking or by making a bald statement. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in No.14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in [(2019)9 SCC 667] wherein the Court held:-

“21. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to judicial review but the courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such report unless there is stron