[2025:RJ-JP:21569-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7802/2025 Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of H. No. 580-K, Sharfuddinpur Jawali ,police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad (U.p). 201102 Applied For Group D Vacancies In The Centralized Employment Notification No. 02/2018, ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell North Western 1St Floor Railway Staff Rest Housing Opposite Drm Office Power House Road Jaipur 2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, 2010 Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer (Raj). 3. General Manager, North Western Railway, General Manager Office, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan 4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Control Board, Rail Bhavan A, Raisina Road, New Delhi. 5. Chairman And Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan 1, Raisina Road, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Rawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 22/05/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’). [2025:RJ-JP:21569-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-7802/2025] 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner applied for Level-I post advertised on 10.02.2018. Petitioner was successful in the examination and cleared physical test, on medical examination he was found unfit for the categories petitioner applied for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least one more medical examination should be done of the petitioner as he qualified in the examinations and also passed physical test wherein the weight was lifted. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves rejection. The tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was medically examined four times and on all occasions was found medically unfit. The appointment was rejected keeping in view the public safety, his own safety and safety of the co-workers. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- “Heard both the sides and perused the results of medical examinations. It is not a case where candidature of the applicant has been summarily rejected. In the first medical examination when certain doubts surface in the mind of the Medical Authority, he was referred to Orthopedist on 21.05.2019 and it is an admitted fact by the applicant that he was kept in the hospital for 05 days, which goes to show that Medical Authorities had done a detailed examination. Again the applicant was given opportunity for re-medical examination on 14.09.2019. This was the second medical examination. Once again on 23.12.2020, as a third opportunity, he was examined by the Medical Board. As he had got himself medically examined by P.L. Sharma, Govt. District [2025:RJ-JP:21569-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-7802/2025] Hospital, Meerut on 18.07.2020 wherein he was categorized in A-2 medical category and the report of this medical examination, he had annexed with his appeal, therefore, after considering this, the respondents had got him medically examined third time by the medical board. Again on 12.02.2021, the applicant got the opportunity to be medically re-examined 4th time. On perusal of the medical report, it is observed that the Medical Board has opined as below:- “The members of medical board are of the opinion that Shri Naveen Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar candidate/Level-1 GP 1800 is unfit in Aye Two, Aye-Three, Bee-One and Bee-Two Medical Category in Level-1 (Designation), as asked by RRC vide memo No.740E/RRC/Level- 1/02/18 MED, but fit in non safety medical category Cey-One and below Level-1 (Designation) for the job where physical manual work is not required and for the job which is unlikely to interfere with the effective performance of his duties of appointment in view of the above mentioned deformity”. It is also seen that the Medical Board gave its conclusion on 12.02.2021, which reads as below:- “12. Conclusion: The members of the medical board have reached the conclusion that Shri Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kumar, Candidate/ RRC, Level 1 GP 1800/- is having cubitus Varus deformity at Left Elbow joint. Carrying angle at right elbow – within normal limit, left elbow carrying angle decreased. Supination Restricted at left forearm ROM 0-90 [2025:RJ-JP:21569-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-7802/2025] degree, Right Forearm 0-180 degree. Mild Restriction of flexion upto 10 degree in left forearm. Extention and motor power comparable to opposite side and within normal limits. There is no neurological deficit and muscle power is comparable to opposite upper extremity. Hence as per Para 510, 511 (1), 511 (3f) of IRMM 2000 Vol I, the candidate is not fit in safety category which involves public safety, safety of himself or his fellow workers or both but fit in non safety medical category i.e. Cey-one and below.” 5. It seems that the Medical Board found the applicant fit in non-safety medical category i.e. Cey-One and below level-1 (Designation) for the job where physical/manual work is not required but have specifically found the applicant not fit in safety category which involved public safety, safety of himself or his fellow workers or both but fit in non-safety medical category. 5. The Supreme Court in No.14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in [(2019)9 SCC 667] held:- “21.Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to judicial review but the courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such report unless there is strong medical evidence on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board which may warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board. The invaliding Medical Board has categorically held that the appellant is not fit for further service and there is no material on record to doubt the correctness of the report of the invaliding Medical Board.” [2025:RJ-JP:21569-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-7802/2025] 6. In view of the findings recorded by the tribunal that the petitioner has been medically examined four times and was admitted for five days in hospital for detailed examination, in such circumstances no case is made out for interference. 7. The present petition is dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /19