THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.22994 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Heard Sri P. Bhaskar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioners-Railway and Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting 1st respondent and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up when the interim applications came up for hearing seeking for vacating the interim stay filed by the petitioners. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner herein which is a Railway filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorari assailing the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.785 of 2009, dated 16-4-2010 in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 wherein he challenged the impugned proceedings dated 4-11-2008 passed by the petitioner No.2 herein and the orders dated 20-7-2008 passed by the petitioner No.3 herein as illegal. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has been in Railway service as Diesel Assistant since 2000. However, in the medical test conducted by the petitioners herein on 2-11-2004, it was reported that the respondent No.1 is having colour blindness. Therefore, the respondent No.1 was discharged from service as per the aforesaid order dated 20-7-2006 for the medical unfitness in terms of note (ii) below para 512 (2) of IRMM on the basis of the medical Certificate No.753 and orders issued therein. Hence, the respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal assailing the correctness of the action taken against him. The Tribunal by addressing itself on the question as to whether discharge of respondent No.1 applicant is illegal and arbitrary and whether he is entitled to a show cause notice before the discharge from service has referred to the various contentions and the grounds as urged from both sides and especially the RBE 149/01, dated 31-7-2001 and other provisions under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I (Revised Edition 1989) and that in view of para 1305 of the Revised Edition 1989 in Chapter XIII of Indian Railway Alternative Manual, vol.1 1989 i.e., absorption in alternative employment for medically decatgorised Railway servants, held that later supersedes former and the respondent No.1- applicant is entitled to be observed in the post identified for employment of physically handicapped persons/creation of supernumerary posts in terms of the said para 1305, which was inserted later. Hence, the impugned orders dated 20-7-2006 are quashed and set aside directing the petitioners herein to give benefit of para 1305 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I as per RB/ESTT No.210/2005 issued vide order No.E (NG)I- 2004/RE-3/9, dated 7-12-2005 of the Railway Board. Hence, this writ petition. Having heard the submissions and on perusal of the material, it is seen that there is no dispute in regard to the correctness of the finding given by the authorities of the petitioners herein holding about colour blindness or malingering. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact that he has undergone the test in the L.V.Prasad Eye Institute and found that the said certificate and diagnosis as done by the petitioners is not correct and therefore the question of malingering does not arise and therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement as rightly directed by the Tribunal. Whereas the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stoutly and sternly denies the correctness of the diagnosis or the test made by the L.V.Prasad Eye Institute and submits that the test as conducted by the authorities of the petitioners is perfectly correct and cannot be doubted. By taking into account these submissions it is seen that there is a contradiction in terms of the correctness in regard to the disability of the respondent No.1, one saying in contra to the other. There is absolutely no reason as to why the report of the L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, which is a reputed Super speciality hospital in the field cannot be accepted. No other reason has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners to find any contradiction in regard to the conclusions arrived at from on this aspect. Be that as it may, in view of such dispute the entire exercise can be redone by a proper independent authority rather than giving any appearance of one sided exercise. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent No.1 can be subjected to retest, both by the authorities of the petitioners and by taking into consideration the report of the L.V.Prasad Eye Institute. Further we are of the view that respondent No.1 can be tested in the Sankara Netralaya, Chennai which is a reputed international super specialty hospital for the eye problems, and the same can form part of the exercise done by the petitioners and for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.785 of 2009, dated 16-4-2010 directing the petitioners to make complete re-exercise and conduct the test including by taking into consideration the report of L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and the report obtained by the respondent No.1 from the Sankara Netralaya, Chennai and pass appropriate orders as to entitlement of the petitioner as already directed. No costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) __________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) dated: -04-2011 grk