7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0236562022 Item Nos.7 to 15 Ct. No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT/49/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus BABLOO KUMAR, SON OF SRI RADHE RAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE + POST OFFICE – BARAHIYA, WARD NO.9 (NEAR JAGDAMBA MILL) DISTRICT – LAKHISARAI, BIHAR, PIN – 811302. …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/50/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY 1 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus MITHILESH KUMAR, SON OF SRI KAMESHWAR ROY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE + POST OFFICE – KHANAWA, WEST TOLA DISTRICT – NAWADA, BIHAR, PIN – 805122 …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/51/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versuus VIVEKANAND CHOURASIA, SON OF LATE SURESH MODI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MODITALA, POST OFFICE – SULTAN GANJ, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR, BIHAR, PIN – 813213 …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/53/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 2 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versuus SUDHAKAR KUMAR, SON OF SRI RABINDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE – KESHOBPUR, POST OFFICE – JANKINAGAR, DISTRICT – MUNGER, BIHAR, PIN – 811211 …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/54/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus SOMNATH BATTACHARJEE, SON OF SRI P K BHATTACHARJEE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT EASTERN RAILWAY COLONY GARHARA, POST OFFICE – GARHARA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARI, BIHAR, PIN – 851126. …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/55/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, 3 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus AMARJIT SAH, SON OF SRI SACHIDA NAND, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE FATEHPUR, POST OFFICE – GANGONIA, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR, BIHAR, PIN – 811211 …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/56/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus UTPAL SARKAR, SON OF SRI GOPAL SARKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE – PANDITPUR, POST OFFICE – CHUPRIA, DISTRICT – NADIA, WEST BENGAL, PIN NO. – 741502 …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/57/2022 4 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus BIRENDRA KUMAR, SON OF SRI ARJUN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE – TARUDAG, POST OFFICE – MANJHAULI, DISTRICT – PALAMU, JHARKHAND, PIN – 822113. …..RESPONDENT WITH WP.CT/58/2022 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, FAIRLIE PLACE, KOLKATA – 700001 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATA – 700012 …..PETITIONERS Versus KRISHNA KANT DAS, SON OF SRI PARESH CHAND DAS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLAGE – BALARAMPUR SARADHA PALLY, POST OFFICE – MADARAT, DISTRICT – SOUTH 24 PARAGANAS, WEST BENGAL, PIN – 743610. 5 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt …..RESPONDENT ---- Appearance: Mrs. Sarda Sha …..Advocates for U.O.I./Appellant Mr. Ujjal Ray Mr. Arpa Chakraborty Mr. Binit Kumar …..Advocate for the Respondent ---- CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In all these matters, the Union of India seeks to assail the order of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dated 02.02.2022, by which, the original applications filed by the Respondents in these Writ Petitions, were taken up together and were allowed with a common judgment, keeping in view, the identical issue involved. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal found 6 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt fault with the decision of the Railways to disallow the Applicants to join duties by opting for any of the options, which they had preferred at the time of applying for the Posts. A direction to the Railways to reconsider the claims of the Applicants, according to the Posts of next preference, in the event, they have been declared unsuited for the earlier preferred Post, has been issued vide the impugned Order. 4. These matters were heard by this Court earlier and no interim relief was granted to the Petitioners. 5. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, who has canvassed at length that the impugned judgment and order is perverse, unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. She has canvassed all the grounds formulated in the Petitions and has contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in considering the policy decision of the Railways vide Circular No.91/2009 dated 01.06.2009, by which, alternative appointment to medically unfit candidates empaneled by the Railway Recruitment Board and the Railway Recruitment Cell in Group – C and Group – D, is to be prohibited. She draws our attention to the contents of the said Circular No.91/2009 and prays that this Court should give a close look to the said Circular and 7 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt appreciate the case of the Petitioners in the light of the same. 6. Learned Counsel for the Union of India has also tendered a Compilation containing dates and events for the assistance of this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the Original Applicants has supported the impugned order. He submits that unless the impugned order amounts to a serious illegality and can be branded as being perverse and erroneous, this Court may not interfere with the order merely because a second view is possible. If the Tribunal has applied to its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and has interpreted the law to do justice in the matter and has taken a plausible view, this Court may not interfere with the same, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v/s K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and in the case of Surya Dev Rai v/s Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (6) SCC 682. 8. It is in the light of the contentions of the parties and the record available that we have considered the record and the impugned order. 8 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt 9. On 16.08.2012, the RRC–ER published an Employment Notification bearing Employment No-0112. Paragraph 16 provides for the selection process. Paragraph 16.1 indicates that the selection will be based on merit alone. The Applicants would have to appear for a written examination to be followed by a Physical Efficiency Test (PET). This would be followed by verification of original documents. If a candidate is found eligible, he would be called upon to participate in the medical examination in tune with Paragraph 7.8 of the RBE 121/2005. The physical ability of an Applicant would be tested in accordance with the relevant standards as are necessary for a particular post with a particular work profile. With reference to each category of the Posts, the panel/select list of selected candidates would have a life tenure of two years from the date of publication. These aspects are undisputed. 10. Each of the applicants submitted their applications on the various dates, in response to the Advertisement for the Post of Group– D. They also mentioned their social status if they fell in any particular reserved category, the choice of Posts were also indicated by each of the Applicants, each of them were examined, was subjected to the PET and the document verification. Each of them were, thereafter, subjected to the medical examination before being empaneled. Each of them were empaneled after being declared to be fit in the particular categories, which 9 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt are in the range of A-1 to C-3 based on their physical fitness. 11. It is undisputed that the physical ability and competency of each candidate led to his/her inclusion in a medical category. For example, if a candidate was in prime fitness and cleared all medical norms to be declared as being most physically fit, he would fall in the medical category ‘A-1’. A candidate found to be medically fit, but his physical fitness was in the lowest category, he would be placed in ‘C-3’, eligible to be appointed for a particular Post which required lesser physical exercise. 12. It is also undisputed that each of these Applicants were found to be eligible for particular posts in particular categories. For example, one of the Applicants viz. Vivekananda Chourasia fell in the A-3 category and considering his options, he was to be recruited on a Post, which required such physical exertion/activity that was categorised to fall in A-3. At the time of publication of the Advertisement, the above aspects were made clear to each of the applicants. Based on such contents of the Advertisement, the candidates had chosen their options. If a candidate, for example, was found medically fit in B-3 Category, which is three levels below A-3, he would be appointed on a Post, which needed that level of physical exertion/activity. 10 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt 13. Considering the vehement submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Union of India and the Railways, we have considered the Circular No.91/2009, which prohibits alternate employment for a medically unfit candidate. A single glance at the Circular would indicate that this stand of the Eastern Railway, does not affect the Applicants. So also, it should have been mentioned in the Advertisement that alternate appointment to a medically fit empaneled candidate would not be permissible. Nevertheless, this aspect does not dent the claims of the Original Applicants for the simple reason that they had opted for particular Posts, which required particular level of medical fitness and each of them has been declared medically fit for particular categories. 14. It is not that these applicants have failed the medical tests. They were never empaneled in the medically unfit category for seeking alternate appointment. These candidates may have failed in the highest of level of medical fitness, but have passed the medical test in particular levels of medical fitness. The categories from A1 to A3, B1 to B3 and C1 to C3, indicate 9 (Nine) levels of physical fitness and any of the candidate, who passed a particular level of physical fitness would be eligible to be appointed on a particular Post, which required the said 11 of 12 7 to 15. WP.CT 49 of 2022 Judgments Corrected Final.odt medical fitness level. 15. In view of the above, we do not find that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal could be branded as being perverse or erroneous. The Tribunal has taken a view, which is sustainable. 16. Therefore, all these Petitions are dismissed. 17. Rule is discharged. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice 12 of 12