RAJESH RANJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI),

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.