03.12.2024 (D/L-14) Ct. No.4 (Naba) W.P.C.T. 324 of 2024 Pran Krishna Biswas Vs. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Ors. Mr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar … for the Petitioner. Mr. Dipanjan Sinha Roy … for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 1. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to retain the respondent no.5 as a respondent and that leave may be granted to expunge the name of respondent no.5 from the records. 2. In view of such submission, we direct the learned Counsel for the petitioner to expunge the name of the respondent no.5 from the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. The Regional Recruitment Cell of the Railways conducted a recruitment process for appointment of Clerk-cum-Typist on 04.10.2013. The petitioner was an applicant in the process claiming himself to be a person with disability (PWD). The medical examination of the petitioner was scheduled in the process of recruitment on 26.10.2013 and he was to report to the office of the Deputy Chief Material 2 Manager for being sent to the railway medical department (Railway Hospital for Medical Examination). He was thereafter medically examined and it was found that the petitioner did not qualify as a visually disabled candidate. The authorities thereafter intimated the petitioner that on this ground he could not be appointed. The communication in this regard is dated 12.01.2014. When the petitioner was not considered against the quota of visually impaired, he moved the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The same was numbered O.A. No. 37 of 2014. The petitioner in the said proceedings sought a direction upon the respondents to give effect to the appointment letter dated 26.10.2013 and to allow him to resume his duty to the post of Clerk- cum-Typist in terms of the appointment order dated 26.10.2013. He also sought quashing of the communication dated 18.12.2013 issued by the authority rejecting his claim. After due consideration, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. filed by the petitioner by recording the following order: “Accordingly, we pass the following direction:- The applicant is directed to subject himself to a medical examination at the 3 hands of either of the medical institutions in Calcutta, namely (i) Medical College & Hospital (Oothalmology Department) or (ii) SSKM hospital (Opthalmology Department) and the applicant is enjoined to inform such medical authority to record in the medical certificate to be issued by them that before examination they were provided with the information concerning rejection of his candidature on the ground of medical opinion given by the medical Board of Railway hospital and that fact should be recorded in the said certificate and thereafter if they give 40% or more disability certificate then the same could be given to the Railway authority and thereupon the applicant shall be subjected to a second medical examination at the hands of the experts of the Railway Hospital and after obtaining the certificate from them it is for the Railway authorities to consider his appointment and pass appropriate order. The applicant is directed to obtain such certificate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the railway authorities shall process it as contemplated above within a period of two months from the date of handing over of certificate to them by the applicant. In the event of the applicant approaching either of these hospitals namely (i) Medical College & Hospital (Opthalmology Department) or (ii) SSKM hospital (Opthalmology Department), he 4 shall be examined as per medical rules and certificate issued.” 5. This direction of the Tribunal was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition. W.P.C.T. 37 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 27.07.2016. A coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition recorded that it could find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The time stipulated in the order however had lapsed in the meanwhile and therefore the High Court granted two months for complying with the direction passed by the Tribunal in the O.A. 37 of 2014. The petitioner thereafter has approached the authorities along with an outpatient card in respect of his treatment being carried on in Medical College and Hospital. The authorities have refused to accept the same on the ground that it is not in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, which attained finality being affirmed by the High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 37 of 2016. The petitioner was, thus, denied appointment against the post that he was claiming by virtue of being a person with visual disability. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities by a detailed order contained in letter dated 16.02.2016. The communication dated 16.02.2016, which 5 according to the learned Counsel for the parties has been stated as 31.08.2017 at page 2 of the impugned order, apparently due to a typographical error. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions has dismissed the petitioner’s claim in the following terms :- “17. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for both the order and considering the material on record we find that the applicant Shri Pran Krishna Biswas, had been provisionally recommended for appointment to the post of Clerk- Com-Typist, against the Physical Handicap quota subject to his meeting the Medical Standard required for being considered under the PH category and that the concerned Railway authority had directed him to appear for medical examination at the Railway Hospital at Kharagpur. The applicant had appeared for medical examination before the said Hospital but the extent of handicap was not considered to be sufficient to enough be considered for appointment under Physical Handicapped. The applicant had thereafter moved this Tribunal by filing an Original Application which was disposed of with a direction upon him for obtaining the Medical Certificate in respect of his handicap from the Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata or the SSKM 6 Hospital at Kolkata. We find that the applicant has not submitted a certificate on this regard from the aforesaid Institutions as directed by this Tribunal. The applicant thereafter had produced a document wherein it is stated that he had visual handicap to the extent of 40%. However, the said document was not accepted by the Competent Authority, on the ground that it was not a certificate that was issued incompliance of this order of this Tribunal and was instead an OPD card. The claim of the applicant was accordingly rejected. However, the respondent authority had thereafter made a request to the Director of Health Service, Government of West Bengal for constituting the Medical Board for re-examining the applicant. The said Board was duly constituted and the applicant was asked to appear before the said NRS Medical Board. The applicant, however, did not appear before the said Board and accordingly no certificate was issued by the said Board. 18. The applicant has not been able to produce valid Medical Certificate regarding his Visual handicap. The Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services of Government of West Bengal of the request of the respondent authority has also not issued any certificate 7 regarding his Visual Handicap. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the applicant has not been able to establish that he suffers from visual handicap to the extent which enables him to be eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk-Cum- Typist against the Physical Handicapped quota. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this Original Application lacks merit. The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at best there is some procedural lapse. The petitioner has substantially complied with the directions of the Tribunal in O.A. 37 of 2014. The outpatient card is from the Medical College and Hospital as per requirement under the order passed by the Tribunal. It is by a Government hospital and therefore, the same ought to have been accepted by the authorities. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. 37 of 2014, has attained finality and is binding the parties. As per the same it was incumbent upon the petitioner to subject himself to a medical examination before a medical board 8 after duly intimating them that the petitioner’s candidature had already been rejected on the ground of medical opinion given by the medical board of the railway hospital. This fact was required to be incorporated in the certificate pursuant to the petitioner’s examination by a medical board. There is no examination of the petitioner by any medical board after the order passed by the High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 37 of 2016. The petitioner has not subjected himself to any medical board and the outpatient card, therefore, has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, we hasten to add that there is no dispute as regards the direction of the Tribunal having attained finality between the parties. There is also no dispute that the order specified the institutions at which the petitioner was to be examined and also contained a specific direction as to what was to be recorded or incorporated in the medical certificate being issued by the board. The outpatient card submitted by the petitioner, from a bare perusal of the same, appears to be a record of some treatment which the petitioner is undergoing since 23.07.2015, much before the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 37 of 2014. Apparently, there is 9 no submission of the petitioner, after the order passed by the Tribunal, to any medical board before the two hospitals stipulated in the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has not produced any certificate regarding his claim to visual impairment in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal earlier in O.A. 37 of 2014, therefore, in our opinion requires no interference. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)