- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the CAT") in Original Application No. 302/2012 "Manish Vaishnav vs. Union of India" by which the CAT has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent -applicant and has directed the petitioner -Border Roads Development Board to give suitable appointment to the respondent -applicant. So far as the consequential benefits are concerned, the CAT directed the petitioner -Border Roads Development Board to consider the claim of the respondent -applicant, after giving him appointment, on the representation to be submitted by him and after the decision on the respondent -applicant's representation, if any grievance remains, the respondent -applicant may approach the Tribunal, if he so desires.
(2.) THE respondent -applicant is a differently abled person. According to the certificate of the Medical Board issued by the Disability Medical Board, Govt. Hospital, Nagaur, the respondent suffers from locomotor disability of weakness in one leg. As per the medical certificate dated 6.11.2009, renewed on 6.2.2010, he suffers from disability category "OL" i.e. one leg affected with weakness, indicating the degree of disability assessed at 60%. He appeared in the Engineering Services Examination, 2009 held by the U.P.S.C. in the reserved quota of physically handicapped persons and passed the examination successfully, securing 204th rank at S. No. 34 in the list. In the selection, certain posts were reserved for physically handicapped persons.
(3.) AFTER success in the written examination, he was called for medical examination. The Medical Board, especially constituted for the Engineering Services Examination, 2009 by the Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, for finding out the suitability of the physically challenged candidates for various services, certified the respondent -applicant to be fit only for specified vacancy reserved for physically impaired and found his appointment permissible under relaxed criterion for physically handicapped functions B/L. The relevant part of the Medical Board report and the findings are quoted as below: "13. Is there anything in the health of the candidate likely to render him unfit for the efficient discharge of his duties in the service for which he is a candidate? Permissible under relaxed criterion for physically handicapped 14. For which services of the following six categories has the candidate been examined and found in all respect qualified for the efficient and continuous discharge of his duties and for which of them is he considered unfit: (i) Railway Engineering Services Gr. A (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Signal, CES Gr. A, CE and MES Gr. A, CWES Gr. A, CES (Roads) Gr. A and MES Gr. A. (ii) AEE P and T Bhilding Gr. A, CPES Gr. A, INAS Gr. A, INSO Gr. A, BRES Gr. A and Post of Engineer Gr. A. (WP and C/Monitoring Organisation). (iii) Assistant Executive Engineer (Group A) in the corps of EME, Ministry of Defence and Survey of India. (iv) IOFS Gr. A (v) Drilling Engineer (Jr.) Gr. A in G.S.I. (vi) IRSS Gr. A Is the candidate fit for field service? No NOTE: The Board should record their findings under one of the following four categories: (i) Fit ............. (ii) Unfit on account of ............ (iii) Temporarily unfit on account of ..... (iv) Fit only for specified vacancy reserved for physically impaired: Permissible under relaxed criterion for physically handicapped functions B/L." The respondent -applicant was allotted the department of Border Roads Development Board (for short 'BRDB'). The BRDB, however, declined to give appointment to the respondent -applicant vide letter dated 18.8.2011. The Railway Board did not agree with the refusal of BRDB, to give him appointment and wrote to BRDB to offer him appointment. The respondent -applicant thereafter made several representations without any success, on which, he filed Original Application in the CAT for following reliefs: "1. The respondents may kindly be directed with the suitable direction to providing the appointment to the applicant on the post of engineering service in the reserved quota PH (LDCP) as the applicant has stood the 204th rank in the merit w.e.f. the date on which the similarly situated persons were appointed with the consequential relief. 2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the seniority and other benefits of the appointment to the applicant's service record from the date of the appointment of other persons, as if he was never denied the same with the consequential relief. 3. That without prejudice to hereinabove if during the pendency of Original Application if vacancies are filled up then in such event the respondents may be directed to create one post for the applicant. 4. That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the interest @ 18 p.a. on the amount of salary after counting from the date of appointments of other persons which becomes due from the date of appointment of the similarly situated persons of ESE 2009. 5. The exemplary cost may be imposed on the respondents for dereliction of duty in not providing the appointment to the applicant despite the duly selection has been made. 6. The impugned action of the respondents in not providing the appointment to the applicant on the post of engineering service in the reserved quota PH (LDCP) may kindly be deprecated and set aside. 7. The cost of the may kindly be made in favour of the applicant. 8. Any other direction or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." ;