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