Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 397 of 2003. 3. It appears that original applicant namely Smt. Shanti Devi made an application before the railway authorities to appoint her son on compassionate ground as her husband was suffering from mental disease and was not capable to discharge his duties. The prayer made by her, however, was rejected. She filed O.A. before the Tribunal which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider her representation upon which her prayer was rejected on 29.11.2002. The order of rejection however, was again challenged before the Tribunal giving rise to the order impugned. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the original applicant was not mentally unfit and report of the medical board was not accepted by the C.M.D. and he referred him for his further examination by a neurologist and in the meantime, he retired. 5. It appears from the order impugned that the husband of the applicant since was suffering from mental disorder, applied before the authorities to declare him unfit. Medical board though was constituted but it took three years to decide the matter and ultimately when it was reported by the medical board about the mental disorder of the husband of the original applicant, the same was not accpeted by the C.M.D. 6. According to the Rules of the Railways, if an employee was to be referred to a medical board, the exercise was to be completed within a period of three months whereas the exercise took three years and ultimately the report of experts was not accepted for the reasons best known to the authorities. 7. The learned Tribunal, in this background of the case and in view of the pleadings of the parties, thus, held that the authorities virtually tried to frustrate the claim of the original applicant for appointment of her son on compassionate ground and accordingly, issued necessary direction to the authorities to consider the case of the applicants son for appointment in a suitable category on compassionate ground within a time frame. 8. 8. There is nothing on record to show that the C.M.D. had sufficient reasons not to accept the report of the medical board. Ordinarily, when a person is referred for examination before a medical board, the report of the experts is accepted unless it is found to be otherwise motivated or tainted with mala fide, it further appears that the exercise was to be completed within three months so far the examination of the husband of the applicant was concerned but unfortunately, it took three years and no satisfactory explanation was made available by the authorities. From the order impugned, it further appears that the C.M.D. had not differed in entirety with the medical report rather he wanted to refer the employee to a neurologist. 9. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction issued by the Tribunal, in our opinion, cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 11. This writ application, is accordingly dismissed.