Candidates must meet all eligibility criteria, including medical standards outlined in the recruitment notification, to qualify for appointment.

ORDER

By Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-

i. issue an order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure A-1) passed by Respondent No.2.

ii. Issue an order or direction directing the respondents to select/appoint applicant on the post for which she has been selected or on any alternative posts.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in her Original Application, are that the applicant, being qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer–II (Signal/Telecommunication) and possessing the requisite educational qualification of Diploma in Electronic Engineering, applied pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2006 issued by Respondent No.2 for recruitment to various posts in the Railways. She was issued an admit card, appeared in the written examination and was declared successful on 20.01.2008.

3.1 Thereafter, the applicant was called upon to submit her preference for post/railway, which she duly submitted. Her documents were verified and her name appeared in the final result dated 24.03.2008. The applicant claims that she also underwent medical examination and was found fit; however, no medical fitness certificate has been placed on record in support of such claim.

3.2 According to the applicant, despite completion of the selection process, no appointment letter was issued to her, though other candidates were appointed. On making representations, she was informed vide letter dated 14.12.2009 that her candidature had been cancelled on the ground of medical unfitness. The applicant thereafter submitted representations on 26.12.2009 seeking alternative appointment, followed by reminders, but no relief was granted.

3.3 Aggrieved by the non-issuance of appointment/alternative appointment despite successful selection and completion of formalities, and alleging violation of statutory rights and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application seeking appropriate directions.

4. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that Employment Notice No.2/2006 expressly prohibited physically disabled candidates from applying for the post of JE-II (Signal/Telecommunication), being a safety category post.

4.1 It is further stated that the applicant deliberately concealed her physical disability, namely having only one normal right eye and being blind in the left eye, at the time of submission of the application form.

According to the respondents, her qualifying the written examination does not create any legal or enforceable right to appointment when she was otherwise ineligible under the terms of the notification. It is further contended that once her disability came to light during scrutiny and verification, her result was rightly withheld and her candidature was subsequently cancelled after obtaining clarification from the Railway Board.

4.2 Further, it is stated by the respondents that the post of JE-II (Signal) does not fall within the categories of posts identified for persons with disabilities by the Railway Board. Clarification to this effect was issued vide Railway Board’s letter dated 07.03.2008, on the basis of which the impugned communication dated 14.12.2009 came to be issued. It is