S.K.M. HAIDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 14-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 909 
S.K.M. HAIDER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1630 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
IND/AN RAILWAY MEDICAL MANUAL. 
Para 510, Annexure 1V -Categorisation of posts for the 
purpose of vision test -Post of Ticket Collector categorized 
A 
B 
c 
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 to the object set out in Para 510 of IRMM, of 
I 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.