SUNIL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.050/00202/16 by which the original application filed by the petitioner against the speaking order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Chief Personal Officer, Central Railway (Respondent No.2) whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2006 requesting for alternative appointment in Railway services was denied has been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was declared successful for appointment on the post of Apprentice Supervisor (Pathway) against Employment Notice No.1 of 2003 vide result dated 03.04.2006 and was issued appointment letter on 12.07.2006, the subsequent declaration of being unfit in medical examination could not have come in the way of his alternative appointment, which was made available to other similarly situated candidates pursuant to the Railway Board's letter issued in the year 2001. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that even though the petitioner was not found medically fit for the post of Apprentice Supervisor (Pathway), he had been declared fit for the alternative appointment in the lower medical category B-1 and below, but the respondent authorities have arbitrarily denied him alternative appointment. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not fit to be sustained in view of the fact that the same has been passed ignoring the bonafide claim and vested right of the petitioner to be appointed under the appropriate category in view of the various letters issued by the Railway Board from time to time.