IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.244 of 2010 KAMESHWAR MANDAL SON OF SRI MAHESH MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUSHWAWA, P.O. MADARICHAK, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA RPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI. 3. THE SENIOR PERSONNEL OFFICER (RECRUITMENT) NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONAL)ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION, DISTRICT JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL). ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ajit Kumar & Mr. Avinash Kumar. For the Respondents :- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha ------- 2 07/01/2010 Heard Mr. Shivajee Pandey, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. Admit. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 513 of 2009 whereby the - 2 - Tribunal has declined to interfere with the Original Application preferred under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 on the ground of delay. Be it noted, the petitioner knocked at the doors of the Tribunal for issue of a direction to the railway administration to consider his representation for holding medical test afresh for consideration of his case to confer the benefit of alternative appointment. The Tribunal did not advert to the same. On a perusal of para 3 of the order of the Tribunal it transpires that it has noted the fact that the applicant before moving the Tribunal was examined by the Medical Board. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is an erroneous recording of fact. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to direct the railway administration to consider the representation of the petitioner for conducting medical test for the purpose of extending the benefit of alternative post to the petitioner. We may hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. - 3 - In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. AMIN (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)