Supreme Court of India
S.K.M. HAIDERversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 122
- Decided
- 14 February 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- AFTAB ALAM
Holding
Ticket Collectors are to be classified under Class C‑2 for vision‑test purposes, and an employee medically fit in that class cannot be denied promotion.
Summary
The appellant, a Group D luggage porter in Northern Railway, qualified for promotion to Ticket Collector (Group C) after passing written and viva‑voce tests, but was denied promotion because he was not declared medically fit in Class B‑2 under Para 510 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM). The appellant challenged the medical classification, arguing that Ticket Collectors should be placed in Class C‑2, not B‑2, and that the denial violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of the vision‑test classification in Para 510, which divides staff into groups A, B and C based on public safety, employee safety, and administrative needs. It held that the vision‑test requirements for Ticket Collectors align with the administrative‑only objective of Group C, making Class C‑2 the correct category. Consequently, the appellant, being medically fit in Class C‑2, could not be denied promotion. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the appellant’s promotion on the basis of his Class C‑2 fitness.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant was rightly denied promotion to Ticket Collector on the ground of not being declared medically fit in Class B‑2 under Para 510 of the IRMM.
- Whether the categorisation of the post of Ticket Collector under Class B‑2 is consistent with the object of Para 510 of the IRMM.
- Whether the denial of promotion violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non‑discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
service lawpromotionIndian Railway Medical Manualvision test classificationconstitutional lawArticles 14Article 16railway personnelmedical fitnesspost categorisation
Judgment
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 909
S.K.M. HAIDER A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1630 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
B
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW:
IND/AN RAILWAY MEDICAL MANUAL. c
Para 510, Annexure 1V -Categorisation of posts for the
purpose of vision test -Post of Ticket Collector categorized
as Class B-2 i.e. 'in the interest of employee himself for his
fellow worker or both' -Held : There seems to be no rational
basis in relation to the object set out in para 510 of D
categorizing post of Ticket Collector under Class B-2 -
Categorisation of posts for the purpose of vision tests must
have neXU$ with the object set out in Para 510 -Having regard
to the ob)ective of division of groups/classes for the purpose
of vision test, the post of Ticket Collectors cannot be held to E
be covered by Class B-2, but rather will be covered by Class
C-2 -Employee 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 C-2 - F
Judgments and orders passed by High Court and the Tribunal
are set aside -Employers would consider employee's claim
for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector on the basis of
medical fitness in Class C-2 -Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14 and 16. G
The appellant joined the service in Northern Railway
on a Group 'D' post of Luggage Porter in 1991. The next
promotion from Luggage Porter was to the post of Ticket
909 H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Collector. The appellant qualified the written test and viva-
voce and his name was placed on the list of candidates
found suitable for the post of Ticket Collector. However,
he was not declared medically fit in Class B-2. His
representation before the Department, application before
B the Central Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition
before the High Court were all dismissed.
In the instant appeal filed by the appellant, the
question for consideration before the Court was :
"whether the appellant has been rightly denied
C 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".
D Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In Para 510 of Indian Railway Medical
Manual, non-Gazetted Railway services have been
divided into three broad groups, namely, groups 'A', 'B'
E and 'C' for the purpose of vision tests. This division
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 'classes' is
F apparently founded to achieve the above objective. The
post of Ticket Collector is categorized in Class B-2 under
the head 'station supervisory and artisan staff'. [para 11]
[916-H; 917-A-C]
G 1.2 Though post of Ticket Collector is categorised
under Class B-2 in Annexure IV, but while doing so the
uhderlying 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
H services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly, Class
S.K.M. HAIDER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 911
B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms A
engaged on duties. It has been so done because faiUng
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 B
his fellow workers or both'. [para 12] (917-D-E]
1.3 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 C
only' - the objective contemplated in group C. In this view
of the matter, there seems to be no rational basis, in
relation
I
to the object set out in Para 510 of IRMM, of
categorizlng the post of Ticket Collectors under Class B-
2 in ,Annexure IV. Having regard to the objective of D
division of groups/ classes for the purpose of vision tests
und~r 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. [para 12] (917-F-G; 918-A]
E
1.4 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 F
set out in Para 510. Any inconsistency in categorization
of Railway posts in Annexure IV, must not operate
against the appellant in getting promotion to the post of
Ticket Collector. [para 12] [917-H; 918-B]
1.5 The appellant could not have been denied G
• 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. [para 13] [918-C]
H
e
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A 1.6 The judgment and order passed by the High
Court and that of the Tribunal are set aside. The
respondents shall 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
B the provisional list. [para 14) [918-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1630 Of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.03.2009 of the High
C Court of Punjba & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 12114 of 2006.
P.S. Patwalia, Jagjit Chhabra, Aman Preet Singh Rahi,
Tushar Bakshi for the Appellant.
D A. Mariar Putham, Subhash Kaushik, Harish Bagchi,
Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E R.M. LODHA, J. 1. 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
F 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
G December 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
H
S.K.M. HAIDER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 913
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
written test and was called for viva-voce by the Interview A
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. B
4. On July 3, 2003, the appellant appeared before the
Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, ORM Office,
Ambala Cantt. (Respondent No. 3) for medical examination but
he was not declared fit in Class B-2.
c
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 D
of the Medical Board, the appeal preferred by the appellant
challenging the medical report dated July 3, 2003 was rejected.
6. The appellant then got himself examined at All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on November 3, 2004 · E
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 F
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 G
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
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A classification of staff for the purpose of vision tests of
candidates and of serving Railway employees. It reads as
follows:
"510. Classification of staff:-
8 (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 under each of the classes/
C groups mentioned below are given in Annexure IV to this
chapter.-
Groups Classes
A Vision tests required in A-1 Foot plate staff, Rail
D the interest of public car drivers and Navigating
safety staff (For foot plate staff
see para 520)
A-2. Other running staff, Other
E shunting staff, Point lockers,
Station masters, and other
staff in operative control of
signals.
F A-3 Loco, signal and
Transportation Inspectors,
staff aothroised to work
trolleys, Yard supervisory
staff, Road motor drivers
G and gate keepers on level
crossings.
B. Vision tests required in B-1 Such station and yard non
the interest of the supervisory, shed and
employee himself or his other staff, excluding shed
H
S.K.M. HAIDER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 915
[R.M. LOQHA, J.]
fellow workers or both man, as are engaged on A
duties where failing eye
sight may endanger
themselves or other
employees from moving
vehicles, Road Motor B
drivers, permanent Way
· Mistries, Gang mates,
Keymen and staff of the
Railway Protection Force.
c
B-2 Certain staff in workshops
and engine rooms engaged
on duties when failing eye
sight may endanger
themselves or other
D
employee~from moving
parts of the machinery and
crane drivers on open line.
C Vision tests required in C-1 Other workshop and engine
the interest of adminis- room staff, shed stockers E
tration only and other staff in whom a
higher standard of vision
than is required in clerical
room staff, shed stockers
and kindred occupation is F
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 G
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.•
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B A-1 xx xx xx The combined vision
with or without glasses
should be the ability to
read ordinary print.
Where reading or close
c work is required, the
combined near vision
should be Sn. 0.6
A-2 xx xx xx
.O A-3 xx xx xx
B-1 6/12, 6/24 with or As above
without glasses. Power
of lenses not to exceed
E 8 D.
B-2 As above As above
C-1 6/18, nil or combined Sn. 0.6 with or without
6/18 with or without glasses where reading or
F
glasses. close work is required.
C-2 6/24, nil or 6/24 As above.
combined with or
without glasses".
G
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
H classes. Group A has been divided in Classes A-1, A-2 and
S.K.M. HAIDER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 917
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
A-3 while groups B and C have been divided in two Classes A
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 B
classification of different staff in various '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 c·
· 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 D
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 E
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:l not required 'in the interest
of employee himself or his fellow workers or both' as F
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, there seems to be no rational basis, in
,relation to the object set out in Para 51 O of I RM M, of .
'categorizing the post of Ticket Collectors under Class B~2 in G
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. 1-1
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A 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,
B 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
C 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,
D 2009 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
E 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.
RP. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search