Jurisdiction over recruitment to the Railway Protection Force lies with the Administrative Tribunal for applicants, but service-related matters of appointed members are excluded under Section 2(a) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 42 of 2020, titled Kapil Gurjar v. Ministry of Railways & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein and directed the issuance of an appointment letter to the respondent. The petitioners further challenge the Order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Full Bench of the learned Tribunal in the above O.A., wherein it was held that the learned Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the recruitment process for appointment to the Railway Protection Force (“RPF”).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The petitioner had issued a notification inviting applications for vacancies to the post of Sub-Inspector in the RPF vide Notification No. 02/2018 dated 01.06.2018, pursuant to which the respondent had applied on 29.06.2018 under the OBC category.

3. The respondent applied for the same and was called upon to participate in the Computer Based Test (“CBT”), the Physical Efficiency Test (“PET”) and the Physical Measurement Test (“PMT”). 4. The respondent successfully qualified the aforesaid tests, pursuant to which his name was included in the list of empanelled candidates shortlisted for the post of Sub-Inspector.

5. The respondent was called for a medical examination vide Letter dated 29.06.2019. Pursuant to the medical examination conducted on 06.07.2019, the respondent was declared medically „unfit‟ vide Medical Memo No. 423306 dated 08.07.2019, on the ground that he had undergone Lasik Eye Surgery for vision correction.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal against the said medical opinion seeking a re-medical examination. It was the case of the respondent before the Appellate Authority that both, government and private ophthalmologists, had issued fitness certificates certifying that he was „fit‟ for employment as his vision had been corrected.

7. The Appellate Authority thereafter constituted a Medical Board comprising three doctors to assess the medical status of the respondent. Upon examination, the Medical Board observed that the respondent had been correctly declared medically „unfit‟ in the initial medical examination, as he had undergone Lasik Surgery for vision correction in both eyes.

8. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 26.09.2019, the respondent filed O.A. No. 42 of 2020 before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal reserved the matter for orders on 21.01.2021.

9. The respondent, however, approached this Court by way of W.P. (C) 3604 of 2021, seeking expeditious disposal of the aforesaid O.A.. The same was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 19.03.2021.

10. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 16.09.2021, referred the matter to the Full Bench of the learned Tribunal to decide the following questions:

“(i) Whether grievance qua one‟s selection/ recruitment/ appointment to a post under the RPF shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal?

(ii) Whether the grievance of a member of the RPF shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal? And ·

(iii) Whether once the respondents in the relevant vacancy notice has accepted the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, they are estopped from raising an objection qua lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal after such notification has culminated into final selection for the post(s) under the RPF?”

11. The respondent ag