SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1852

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Aishwaraya G – Appellant
Versus
Railway Recruitment Board – Respondent
O.A./1434/2025



##PAGE1##

1 OA/310/01434/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/01434/2025

Dated this the 29th day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND

HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)

Aishwarya G,

D/o Gnanaprakasam,

No.242, Gokale Street,

Ram Nagar,

Coimbatore. .. Applicant

By Advocate M/s. D. Anand Raja

Vs.

Union of India

rep by The Chairman,

Railway Recruitment Board,

Dr P. V. Cherian Cresent Salai,

Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondent

By Advocate Ms. P. J. Anitha

##PAGE2##

2 OA/310/01434/2025

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. L. Srivastava, Member (A)

The applicant has filed the OA for a direction to the respondent to

consider the applicant's candidature by re-conducting the medical test as

she has been found eligible and possess requisite qualifications having

successfully cleared the examination for selection to the post of Senior

Clerk cum Typist/Junior Account Assistant Commercial Typist/Senior

Commercial Clerk cum Ticker Collector and thus render justice.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The applicant appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent

for recruitment to Undergraduate and Graduate level posts under the HI

(HH)/PwD quota of NTPC. The examination for the said posts was held

on 15.06.2022. The applicant, being a qualified graduate, an OBC

candidate, and a person with disability having 89% disability, appeared for

the examination under Roll No. 181194180697714. The applicant submits

that, as per the respondent’s letter, dated 18.11.2022, she was provisionally

shortlisted for verification of certificates, genuineness of candidature, and

medical examination. She further submits that on 07.12.2022, pursuant to

the respondent’s communication and being found eligible for the posts of

Senior Clerk-cum-Typist/Junior Account Assistant-cum-Commercial

##PAGE3##

3 OA/310/01434/2025

Typist/Senior Commercial Clerk-cum-Ticket Collector, she underwent a

medical examination. She was also directed to undergo an eye

examination at Dr. Agarwal’s Eye Hospital, and the result was found to be

satisfactory for the post applied for. Thereafter, the applicant was again

directed to undergo another round of medical examination at the Railway

Hospital, Perambur. The said medical examination was conducted on

19.12.2022, and the doctors certified that the applicant was medically fit.

However, the respondent has failed and is reluctant to furnish the results of

the second medical examination conducted at the Railway Hospital. The

applicant possesses the requisite qualifications and was successful in the

examination. Despite this, the respondent deliberately rejected her

candidature, as published on the official website on 22.02.2023. The

applicant made a representation, dated 14.10.2024 requesting a re-medical

examination; however, the respondents have not considered the said

representation. Hence, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing

the present Original Application.

3. When the matter was taken up for admission, learned counsel for the

applicant submitted that the applicant possessed all the requisite

qualifications for the notified posts and, upon successfully clearing the

examination, was shortlisted for document verification and medical

##PAGE4##

4 OA/310/01434/2025

examination. However, the respondents declared the applicant medically

unfit, despite medical reports from other hospitals certifying her fitness. It

was further submitted that the applicant, being an OBC and PwD

candidate with 89% disability, had satisfied all eligibility criteria and,

having been shortlisted after clearing the computer-based test, the rejection

of her candidature on medical grounds is arbitrary and violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that sufficient medical

certificates issued by qualified medical professionals and hospitals

authenticated the applicant’s medical fitness. Despite the same, the

respondents subjected the applicant to another round of medical

ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top