Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice T.M. Nadaf dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the assessment of the Railway Medical Board, holding that the declaration of unfitness due to a speech fluency disorder did not warrant judicial interference. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s disqualification was neither arbitrary nor contrary to recruitment rules and stated that the employer is best positioned to prescribe job qualifications.

The petitioner, aged 30, applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot pursuant to Centralised Employment Notification No. CEN 01/2018 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB). He successfully cleared the first and second stage computer-based tests, aptitude test, and document verification, and was called for a medical examination.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds In-Charge SHO Competent To Conduct NDPS Search | High Court Manifestly Erred In Interpreting Section 42 Of The Act | Trial Directed To Continue Expeditiously

On 05.09.2019, the petitioner underwent medical examination at the Railway Hospital in Hubballi. He was declared medically unfit for the Aye-One and Bee-One categories due to stammering, as communicated by RRB on 22.11.2019. Dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed the decision on 12.12.2019, submitting a medical certificate from Civil Hospital, Rewari, which described the stammering as very mild and insignificant.

As part of the appellate process, the petitioner was re-examined on 09.03.2020 at the Railway Hospital in Bengaluru and referred to the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH), Mysuru. The AIISH report dated 11.03.2020 diagnosed mild stuttering and noted that the condition generally does not affect work efficiency. However, on 28.08.2020, RRB issued a speaking order declaring the petitioner medically unfit for the post of ALP due to a speech fluency disorder.

The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, challenging the decision. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on 20.09.2022. Following the dismissal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the CAT’s order and include his name in the select list for recruitment.

In the interim, the High Court on 14.08.2023 directed that the petitioner undergo a fresh medical examination at AIISH, Mysuru. The report dated 07.02.2024 stated that the petitioner exhibited clinically fluent speech, used a slow speech rate, and followed prolonged speech techniques, which in general would not affect his work efficiency.

The petitioner contended that stammering was not a specified disqualification under the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) and that his role would not involve public contact. He argued that the rejection was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence and cited precedent judgments where similar disqualifications were deemed unjustified.

The respondents submitted that the duties of an ALP required flawless and prompt communication with various railway staff, including station masters, guards, and control boards. They maintained that any speech impairment could compromise safety. Citing expert reports and the IRMM, they argued that the risk posed by stammering under stress or emergency conditions justified disqualification.

The Court recorded: “Our answer to the question framed is in negative.” It noted that although the petitioner passed all tests, he was found medically unfit for Aye-One and Bee-One categories due to stuttering. The Court detailed the duties assigned to an ALP and observed: “There are several duties casted on the ALP which he is duty bound to adhere while discharging his duties.”

Referring to the re-evaluation report from AIISH dated 07.02.2024, the Court stated: “During the clinical interview, the client was able to maintain fluency in his speech without any dysfluencies. Also, client is using slow rate of speech and following the prolonged speech technique.” It noted further: “In general, this will not affect the physical work efficiency of the client.”

However, the Bench found that: “From the remarks in the report, it is manifestly clear that in the clinical speech, the petitioner was responding slowly, and with prolonged speech technique maintaining his fluency.”

On the risk of speech impairment under stress, the Court cited the expert clarification: “Situational variability and stress induce conditions increase the dysfluencies of stuttering.”

The Bench stated: “A flawless communication is sine-qua-non for the post of ALP. A stress situation is susceptible to disturb mental condition, which could impair a natural/normal speaking capacity and leads to dysfluencies in speech.” It observed that this could result in “slow communication or prolonged communication or no communication sometimes, with Control Board and other Co-Workers.”

Referring to specific job duties of an ALP, the Court recorded: “Especially, as per duty No.11, ‘ON RUN’, an ALP who is suffering from speech disorder may not be in a condition to communicate with the Control Board… involving stakes of several passengers travelling on the train.”

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on precedent, the Court stated: “The judgments are distinguishable on facts and principles.” In particular, it noted that in Mohammed Ibrahim, the duties were supervisory and accommodation was feasible, whereas: “In the case on hand, the post applied by the petitioner involves an individual duty casted only on him, which involves flawless communication and there could not be any assistance by any other persons.”

The Court concluded: “The Tribunal having taken into consideration of all the situations, considered the case of the petitioner… has rightly come to the conclusion that the declaration of the petitioner as unfit for the post of ALP cannot be held to be unreasonable.”

Also Read: Patna High Court Quashes 22-Year-Old Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist | Terms It Abuse Of Process Citing Unimpeachable Medical Report On Kidney Removal Allegation

The Court recorded that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all relevant circumstances and rightly concluded that the declaration of the petitioner as unfit for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot could not be held unreasonable.

It stated that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petition failed and was liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

It passed the following order: the petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no order as to cost.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Achappa P.B., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI

Case Title: Rishi Kumar v. Union of India & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 25044 of 2022 (S-CAT)

Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice T.M. Nadaf

[Read/Download order]