REPORTABLE           

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.  1630   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 35013 of 2009)

S.K.M. Haider …. Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors.          ….Respondents  

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.  

Leave granted.   

2. A  short  question  that  arises  for  consideration  in  this  

appeal, by special leave, is as to whether the appellant has been  

rightly   denied  promotion  to  the  post  of  Ticket  Collector  (TCR),  

Group  ‘C’  post,  on  account  of  his   having  not  been  declared  

medically fit in  Class B-2  under Para 510 of Indian Railway Medical  

Manual (for short, ‘IRMM’).

3. The  appellant—S.K.M.  Haider—joined  the  service  in  

Northern Railway as Luggage Porter, Group ‘D’ post,  on December  

1

3, 1991. The next channel of promotion from Luggage Porter  is to  

the post of Ticket Collector.   Having acquired eligibility for promotion  

to the post of Ticket Collector, the appellant appeared in the written  

test held by the respondents on January 8, 2003. He was successful  

in  the  written  test  and  was  called  for  viva-voce  by  the  Interview  

Committee on February 25, 2003. On June 24, 2003, a provisional  

list of the candidates who were found suitable for the post of Ticket  

Collector on the basis of written test and viva voce was prepared in  

which the appellant’s name was placed at Serial No. 25.  

4. On  July  3,  2003,  the  appellant  appeared  before  the  

Medical  Superintendent,  Northern  Railway,  DRM  Office,  Ambala  

Cantt. (Respondent No. 3) for medical examination but he was not  

declared fit in Class B-2.

5. The appellant challenged the medical report dated July  

3,  2003  by  filing  an  appeal  before  the  Chief  Medical  Director,  

Northern  Railway.  He  was  asked  to  appear  before  the  Medical  

Board  on  September  15,  2004.  The  Medical  Board  found  the  

appellant fit in Class C-2 with glasses. Based on the opinion  of the  

Medical Board, the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the  

medical report dated July 3, 2003 was rejected.

2

6. The  appellant  then  got  himself  examined  at  All  India  

Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on November 3, 2004 and it  

is his case that he was found medically fit in Class B-2.

7. The  appellant  aggrieved  by  his  non-promotion  to  the  

post  of  Ticket  Collector   approached  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal,  

on February 8, 2006,  after hearing the counsel for the appellant and  

the counsel for respondents, rejected the original application filed by  

the appellant.  

8. Being  not  satisfied  with  the  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  

appellant   moved   the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  for  

redressal of his grievance but there,  too,  he was unsuccessful and  

the writ petition filed by him was dismissed on March 21, 2009.

9. Para  510   in  Chapter  V  of  the  IRMM  deals  with  

classification  of   staff  for   the   purpose   of  vision   tests   of  

candidates and of serving Railway employees. It reads as follows :

“510. Classification of staff:-

(1)  for  the  purpose  of  visual  acuity  and  general  physical  examination of candidates and of serving Railway employees, the  non-Gazetted Railway services are divided into the following broad  groups and classes.  The detailed categories of Railway posts  

3

under each of the classes/groups mentioned below are given  in Annexure IV to this chapter:-

Groups Classes

A Vision  tests  required  in  the  interest  of  public  safety  

A-1 Foot  plate  staff,  Rail  car  drivers  and  Navigating  staff   (For foot  plate staff  see para 520)

A-2. Other running staff,  Other  shunting  staff,  Point  lockers,   Station masters,  and other staff in operative  control of signals.

A-3 Loco,  signal  and  Transportation  Inspectors,  staff  authroised  to  work  trolleys,  Yard  supervisory  staff,  Road  motor  drivers  and gate keepers on level  crossings.  

B. Vision  tests  required  in  the  interest  of  the  employee himself  or  his  fellow  workers or both  

B-1 Such station and yard non  supervisory,  shed  and  other staff, excluding shed  man,  as  are  engaged  on  duties  where  failing  eye  sight  may  endanger  themselves  or  other  employees  from  moving  vehicles,  Road  Motor  drivers,  permanent  Way  Mistries,  Gang  mates,  Keymen  and  staff  of  the  Railway Protection Force.  

B-2 Certain staff in workshops  and  engine  rooms  engaged  on  duties  when  failing  eye  sight  may  

4

endanger  themselves  or  other  employees  from  moving  parts  of  the  machinery  and  crane  drivers on open line.

C Vision  tests  required  in  the  interest  of  administration  only  

C-1 Other  workshop  and  engine  room  staff,  shed  stockers and other staff in  whom a higher standard of  vision  than  is  required  in  clerical  and  kindred  occupation  is  necessary  for  reasons  of  efficiency  and others  not  coming in  Group A or B

C-2 Staff  in  clerical  occupations  not  included  in A, B and C-1  

(2) As the foot-plate staff have to pay sustained attention, it is  necessary to have separate standards for these staff.  These  are enumerated in para 520 below.”  

10. The standards of visual acuity requirements are set out  

in Para 512 of IRMM.  The relevant extract of that provision is as  

follows:  

“Class Distant Vision Near Vision

A-1 x x                 xx               xx The  combined  vision  with  or  without  glasses  should  be  the  ability  to  read  ordinary  print.   Where  reading  or  close  work  is  required,  the  combined  near  vision  should  be  Sn.  0.6  

5

A-2 x x                xx                xx   

A-3 x x                xx                xx   

B-1 6/12, 6/24 with or without  glasses.  Power of lenses  not to exceed 8 D.

As above

B-2 As above As above

C-1 6/18, nil or combined 6/18  with or without glasses.  

Sn.  0.6  with  or  without  glasses  where  reading  or  close work is required.  

C-2 6/24, nil or 6/24 combined  with or without glasses”.

As above.  

11. It  would  be  seen  from  Para  510  of  IRMM  that  non-

Gazetted  Railway  services   have  been  divided  into  three  broad  

groups, namely,  groups ‘A’,  ‘B’  and ‘C’  for  the purpose of vision  

tests.  These three groups have been divided into different classes.  

Group A has been divided in Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 while groups  

B and C have been divided in two Classes each, viz; B-1, B-2 and  

C-1, C-2 respectively. The division of groups, A, B  and C for vision  

tests appears to have been made keeping in mind the objective, viz;  

‘in  the interest  of  public  safety’;   ‘in  the interest  of  the employee  

himself  or  his  fellow  workers  or  both’   and  ‘in  the  interest  of  

administration only’.   The classification of different staff in various  

6

‘classes’ is apparently founded to achieve the above objective. The  

detailed  categories  of  Railway  posts  under  each  of  the  

classes/groups are given in Annexure IV appended to Chapter V.  

Insofar as post of Ticket Collector is concerned, it is categorized in  

Class B-2 under the head ‘station supervisory and artisan staff’.

12. Though  post  of  Ticket  Collector  is  categorised   in  

Annexure IV in  Class B-2 but while doing so the underlying object of  

division  of staff into three broad groups A, B and C for vision tests of  

candidates  and  of  serving  Railway  employees  in  non-Gazetted  

Railway services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly,  Class  

B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms engaged  

on  duties.  It  has  been  so  done  because  failing  eyesight  may  

endanger themselves or other employees from moving parts of the  

machinery and crane drivers on open line.  This is in consonance  

with the objective of group B viz; `in the interest of the employee  

himself or his fellow workers or both’.  Insofar as Ticket Collectors  

are concerned, vision tests for them are not required ‘in the interest  

of employee himself or his fellow workers or both’ as contemplated  

in group B but it is required in the interest of administration only –  

the objective contemplated in group C.  In this view of the matter,  

7

there seems to be no rational basis, in relation to the object set out  

in Para 510 of IRMM, of categorizing the post of  Ticket Collectors  

under Class  B-2 in Annexure IV.  However, it is for the respondents  

to have a fresh look insofar as categorisation of  posts pertaining to  

non-Gazetted  Railway  services  in  Annexure  IV  is  concerned.  

Suffice it to say that categorization of posts for the purpose of vision  

tests must have nexus with the object set out in Para 510.   Having  

regard to the objective of division of groups/ classes for the purpose  

of  vision  tests  under  Para  510  of  IRMM,   the  post  of  Ticket  

Collectors can not be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will  

be covered by Class C-2.  Any inconsistency in categorization of  

Railway posts in Annexure IV, in our view,  must not operate against  

the appellant in getting promotion to the post of Ticket  Collector.  

13. We hold, as it  must be held, that the appellant could not  

have been denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector as he  

had  passed  written  test  and  viva  voce  and  was  provisionally  

selected for the post of Ticket Collector  and  had been declared  

medically fit in Class C-2.

14. Consequently,  appeal  is  allowed;  judgment  and  order  

passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 21, 2009  

8

and  the  order  dated  February  8,  2006  passed  by  the  Central  

Administration Tribunal, Chandigarh are set aside. The respondents  

shall now consider the appellant’s claim for promotion to the post of  

Ticket Collector  on the basis of his medical fitness in Class  C-2 and  

his  empanelment  in  the  provisional  list  dated  June  24,  2003  and  

appropriate order in this regard will be issued within two months from  

today. The parties shall bear their own costs.  

  …………………….J.            (Aftab Alam)

   .………………….. J.           (R.M. Lodha)  

NEW DELHI. FEBRUARY 14, 2011.

9