Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—In pursuance of an advertisement that was issued for appointment of men and women constables in the Railway Protection Force in North Eastern Railway, the respondent applied for selection. The respondent qualified in the written examination, physical efficiency test and interview but was rejected at the stage of medical examination on the ground of having failed to meet the standards specified for ocular vision. This led to the filing of a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 58721 of 2014) in which an order was passed in the following terms:

“Accordingly, without going into merit of the claim of the petitioner, it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 3 shall decide the representation of the petitioner for which he is permitted to file fresh representation, which shall be decided by the respondent No. 3 on its own merit, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said respondents.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

2. The representation submitted by the respondent was considered and rejected by the Chief Security Commissioner on 8 June 2015 on the ground that since the respondent failed to meet the required standards in the course of medical examination and was categorized in Category B-1, her name was not included in the select list. On this ground, the representation was not entertained.

3. When the respondent filed a fresh writ petition, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16 September 2015, whereby a direction was issued to the Principal of the King George Medical College, Lucknow (KGMC) to get a vision test conducted by a Doctor authorized by him within two weeks. The date fixed by the Principal was to be informed to the Inspector General-cum-Chief Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur who was permitted to depute an officer to be present at the time of medical examination. However, in case no one appeared on behalf of the Chief Security Commissioner, the medical examination was to be conducted on the same date.

4. Following the interim order, the report submitted by the Principal, KGMC was produced before the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order dated 26 November 2015, the learned Single Judge noted that the respondent was examined by a panel of three Doctors from KGMC, who had opined that her eye sight vision is within normal limits. The learned Single Judge held that it is thus clear that the respondent has a clear vision and was wrongly disqualified in the medical examination by the appellants. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 8 June 2015 rejecting her representation and a direction was issued to the appellants to consider her for appointment within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- were awarded against the appellants.

5. From the record of the case, it is clear that the respondent was not included in the select list only on the ground that in the course of the medical examination, her vision was not found to be of the requisite standards and she was placed in Category B-1. In the first writ petition, a direction was issued for considering the representation of the respondent. The representation was rejected by the authority on the ground that the Medical Board had not found the respondent to be meeting the prescribed norms for ocular vision and was categorized in Category B-1. In the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 September 2015, a direction was issued for the examination of the respondent by a team of medical experts, to be nominated by the Principal, KGMC. The learned Single Judge observed that ordinarily the Court does not interfere in cases where the candidate has been rejected on medical grounds. Despite t