M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents -Railway.
(2.) IN the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing that part of the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Ranchi in O.A. No. 192 of 2006 whereby the claim of the petitioner for alternative appointment has been rejected holding that the candidates selected for the category of Assistant Driver/ASM/Motorman are not eligible for any alternative appointment in view of the Railway Circular dated 4.9.2001. It appears that pursuant to the notice issued in the newspaper dated 17.8.2004 for filling up the post of Assistant Station Master, the petitioner applied for and was selected after he was declared passed in the written examination. The petitioner was then called for aptitude test on 3.10.2005. The petitioner was thereafter informed by letter dated 5.1.2006 that he was not qualified in the vision test for the post of Assistant Station Master. The petitioner was also given liberty to file representation to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board along with a. medical (vision) certificate. The petitioner sent his representation to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi on 8.4.2006 along with a vision certificate, but the representation could not reach the office on or before the date fixed i.e. 10.4.2006. The petitioner then gave representation for consideration of his case and, thereafter, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents contemn, the claim the petitioner stating inter alia that although he was found eligible in the aptitude test, but he was not found fit in the (sic). It was argued by the petitioner before the Tribunal that (sic) found fit in the vision test, he should be considered for the post of other alternative job, which was not agreed to by the respondents. The Tribunal considered the Railway Board Circular dated 4.9.2001 and held that in the circular, it is clearly mentioned that candidates selected in the category of Assistant Driver, will also not be eligible for other alternative appointment, if they are not finally selected in the final medical examination. However, the Tribunal held that since the respondents have not considered his representation for re -examination of the vision, it will be proper to make re -examination of vision of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Station Master. Although, he was selected in the written examination and aptitude test, but he was found unfit in the vision test. The petitioner filed representation along with a vision certificate, but because of the delay in the receipt of the representation, the same was not considered. The Tribunal, therefore, while disposing the application, directed the respondents to consider his representation for re -examination of his vision. The contention of Mrs. Pal is that in the event he is found unfit in the vision test, his case should be considered for alternative appointment.;