JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. The Union of India and the Railway establishment have filed this original petition, aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.727 of 2011 and R.A.No.39 of 2012. The original application was filed by the respondent herein with the averments and contentions as under :- The applicant was initially appointed in the Group-D post of Sweeper-cum-Porter in the Southern Railway on 25.10.1988. At the time of appointment, the applicant was medically categorised as Aye Two (A2). The applicant was subjected to medical examination again on 12.11.1997 and found unfit to be in Class Bee-Two (B2) and fit for inclusion only in Class Cee-One (C1) category. The medical examination was conducted consequent to hospitalisation of the applicant pursuant to signs of mental illness. On examination by the Psychiatrist, the applicant was diagnosed to be suffering from 'Schizophrenia'. Thereupon, he was absorbed in the alternative post of Running Room Attendant and later as Luggage Porter, which are posts prescribed for personnel with C1 classification. 2. While continuing as Luggage Porter, the applicant appeared for selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Driver. During the process of selection, the applicant underwent medical examination and was issued with Annexure A2 certificate dated 6.12.2006, wherein the Doctor certified him to be fit for service in Class B1 with glasses. But the applicant was not successful in the selection conducted by the Railways to the post of Motor Vehicle Driver. In the meanwhile, Annexure A3 notification dated 28.8.2006 was issued by the Railways inviting applications from Group-D employees for promotion to the 33 1/3% of vacancies reserved for them in the posts of Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector, Train Clerk etc. The applicant applied for the post of Ticket Clerk and was successful in the written test, but his name was not included in Annexure A5 list of employees empanelled for promotion. Thereupon, the applicant procured Annexure A7 mark sheet under the Right to Information Act, wherein the applicant's mark was noted as 58. The minimum mark required for promotion being 50, the applicant submitted Annexure A8 representation seeking inclusion of his name in the list of selected persons and to promote him to the post of Ticket Collector, along with the others promoted as per Annexure A5. The minimum mark required for promotion being 50, the applicant submitted Annexure A8 representation seeking inclusion of his name in the list of selected persons and to promote him to the post of Ticket Collector, along with the others promoted as per Annexure A5. The applicant was issued with Annexure A9 reply informing him that he was unfit in medical classification A2 to B2 and fit only in C1. That, the required medical classification of Ticket Checking Category being B2, the applicant is not eligible for the post of Ticket Collector. 3. The applicant challenged Annexures A5 and A9 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.395 of 2008, mainly relying on Annexure A2 Medical Certificate issued to him during the process of selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Driver, wherein he was found fit for service in Class B1 with glasses. The respondents contended that Annexure A2 certificate had been cancelled by the department, finding it to have been issued improperly. The Tribunal, at Annexure A10, found that even though the certificate is stated to have been cancelled, there is absolutely no indication as to what prompted the department to unilaterally cancel the certificate without subjecting the applicant for re-examination. It was found that cancellation of the Medical Certificate without subjecting the applicant for another test is an arbitrary action, which cannot be allowed. Based on the said finding, the original application was allowed, declaring that on the basis of Annexure A2 certificate and his performance in the selection process pursuant to Annexure A3 notification, the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector. The Tribunal also made it clear that the department is well within its rights to subject the applicant to medical examination and if the applicant's medical standards meet the requirements for the post of Ticket Collector, his appointment shall be from the date his junior was promoted, without any back wages on retrospective basis, but with his pay fixed notionally with effect from the date of notional appointment, with attendant benefits. 4. Alleging that the directions in Annexure A10 are not being complied with, the applicant filed M.A.No.841 of 2009, on which Annexure A11 order was issued by the Tribunal directing the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant, ignoring the aspect that the medical report issued on 12.11.1997 was not challenged by him. 4. Alleging that the directions in Annexure A10 are not being complied with, the applicant filed M.A.No.841 of 2009, on which Annexure A11 order was issued by the Tribunal directing the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant, ignoring the aspect that the medical report issued on 12.11.1997 was not challenged by him. Pursuant to the direction at Annexure A11, a medical examination was conducted and Annexure A12 medical certificate of physical fitness was issued with the following observation: “As per medical certificate issued on 12.11.1997, No.309587 Employee had been declared unfit for A2, A3, B1 and B2. Since the employee has not challenged successfully this decision, the certificate still operates. So the employee has been declared unfit for B2. Fit for C1 and below.” 5. Thereafter, the applicant was sent for further medical examination before the Medical Director, Railway Hospital, Perumbur and the examination was conducted on three days. The applicant was later served with Annexure A1 communication dated 20.7.2010 informing that, on examination, the Medical Board at the Railway Headquarters, Perumbur had found that the applicant can be made fit in C1 and below only and that the applicant being unfit in B2, he cannot be considered for the post of Ticket Collector. The original application was thereupon filed seeking to quash Annexure A1 and to declare that the applicant is entitled to be promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on the basis of his merit in the examination, seniority and the C1 medical classification and for a consequential direction to promote the applicant from the date of promotion of his juniors. 6. The main contention was that the applicant having qualified in the written test and his position in the seniority list of Porters being 177, which is above many of the persons selected and appointed as Ticket Collector, and the applicant having been declared to be C1 in vision test, which is sufficient for appointment to the post of Ticket Collector, the denial of promotion is arbitrary and unjust. In support of the contention, the applicant relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in SKM Haider v. Union of India and others [ (2011) 4 SCC 700 ]. 7. In support of the contention, the applicant relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in SKM Haider v. Union of India and others [ (2011) 4 SCC 700 ]. 7. The respondents countered the contentions and submitted that in view of the clear stipulation in Annexure A3 notification that, only those who are fit in medical classification -B2 above need apply, the applicant could not have submitted application for the notified posts. That the applicant did not have any grievance regarding the classification prescribed in the notification and had appeared for the written test and that the applicant became aggrieved only on failing in the medical examination. It was submitted that in compliance of Annexure A11 order of the Tribunal, the applicant was subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board consisting of the Medical Director, Railway Hospital-Perumbur, Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Ophthal), Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Phy.) and Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Psy) as co-opted member. That, the examination was conducted in terms of Paragraph 574 (f) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM). The proceedings of the Railway Board were produced as Annexures R3 and R4. It was contended that as per paragraphs 574 (f) of the IRMM, staff recovered from mental diseases could not be employed in posts having any duties connected with the travelling public which demand a firm control over temperament. For example, Platform Inspector, Assistant Station Master, Booking Clerk, Ticket Collector etc. That the applicant being a person diagnosed and treated for mental illness, cannot be appointed to the post of Ticket Collector. 8. In the light of the contention based on Paragraph 574 (f) of IRMM, the applicant amended the original application and incorporated a challenge against Paragraph 574 (f) on the ground that it is unconstitutional, being violative of the constitutional guarantee of equality and the statutory right provided under Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. ('PWD Act' for short). 9. The challenge against Paragraph 574 (f) of the IRMM found favour with the Tribunal. It was held in the impugned order that IRMM cannot override Section 47 (2) of the PWD Act and that in terms of Section 47 (2), the respondents are obliged to promote the applicant to the post of Ticket Collector. ('PWD Act' for short). 9. The challenge against Paragraph 574 (f) of the IRMM found favour with the Tribunal. It was held in the impugned order that IRMM cannot override Section 47 (2) of the PWD Act and that in terms of Section 47 (2), the respondents are obliged to promote the applicant to the post of Ticket Collector. The respondents were, therefore, directed to promote the applicant to the post of Ticket Collector with effect from the date from which his immediate junior was promoted. It was also directed that the applicant should be paid salary of Ticket Collector with effect from the date he takes charge. The Tribunal observed that the respondents are at liberty to give any work to the applicant, other than that of Ticket Collector and that in the absence of posts of Ticket Collector, a supernumerary post should be created for the purpose of giving promotion to the applicant. 10. Even though the respondents sought review of the order, primarily based on the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant and others [ AIR 2010 SC 1253 ], the Tribunal dismissed the review application vide Ext.P6. For dismissing the review application, the Tribunal relied on the decision in SKM Haider. The Tribunal also held that Annexures R3 and R4 medical reports do not establish that the applicant's medical classification will affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of Ticket Collector. It was observed that if, in the perception of the respondents, the applicant should not be engaged as Ticket Collector, he can be given some other work on promoting him to the pay scale of Ticket Collector. 11. In this original petition, the impugned orders of the Tribunal are challenged on the ground that the dictum in SKM Haider was not applicable to the facts of the case, whereas the findings of the Honourable Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar Pant were squarely applicable. The finding of the Tribunal that Section 47 (2) of the PWD Act has overriding effect on Paragraph 574 (f) of IRMM is assailed on the ground that Section 47(2) is not an absolute bar against denying promotion to a person with disability. That, even a person with disability can be denied promotion for reasons other than his/her disability. 12. The finding of the Tribunal that Section 47 (2) of the PWD Act has overriding effect on Paragraph 574 (f) of IRMM is assailed on the ground that Section 47(2) is not an absolute bar against denying promotion to a person with disability. That, even a person with disability can be denied promotion for reasons other than his/her disability. 12. The nature of the challenge raised in the original petition requires us to carefully analyse the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in SKM Haider and Devendra Kumar Pant (supra). In SKM Haider, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the appellant therein had been rightly denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector, Group-C post, on account of his having been declared medically fit in Class B2 under para 510 of the IRMM. The appellant while working as luggage porter had appeared for the written test conducted for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector. Being successful in the written test, the appellant was called for interview and included in the provisional list of suitable candidates. But, in the medical test conducted subsequently, the appellant was declared as unfit in Class B2. The appellant's challenge against the denial of his promotion before the Tribunal and the High Court was without success. Thereupon, the appeal was filed and the Honourable Supreme Court referred to Paragraphs 510 and 512 of the IRMM and proceeded to hold as follows:- “7. It would be seen from Para 510 of IRMM that non-gazetted railway services have been divided into three broad groups, namely, Groups A, B and C for the purpose of vision tests. These three groups have been divided into different classes. Group A has been divided in Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 while Groups B and C have been divided in two classes each viz. B-1, B-2 and C-1, C-2 respectively. The division of Groups A, B and C for vision tests 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 apparently founded to achieve the above objective. “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 apparently founded to achieve the above objective. The detailed categories of railway posts under each of the classes/groups are given in Annexure IV appended to Chapter V. Insofar as the post of Ticket Collector is concerned, it is categorised in Class B-2 under the head “station supervisory and artisan staff”. 8. Though the post of Ticket Collector is categorised in Annexure IV in Class B-2 but while doing so the underlying 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 services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly, Class B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms engaged on duties. It has been so done because failing 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 his fellow workers or both”. Insofar as the 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 only—the objective contemplated in Group C. 9. 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 categorising the post of Ticket Collectors under Class B-2 in Annexure IV. However, it is for the respondents to have a fresh look insofar as categorisation of posts pertaining to non-gazetted railway services in Annexure IV is concerned. Suffice it to say that categorisation of posts for the purpose of vision tests must have nexus with the object set out in Para 510. Having regard to the objective of division of groups/classes for the purpose of vision tests under Para 510 of IRMM, the post of Ticket Collectors cannot be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will be covered by Class C-2. Having regard to the objective of division of groups/classes for the purpose of vision tests under Para 510 of IRMM, the post of Ticket Collectors cannot be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will be covered by Class C-2. Any inconsistency in categorisation of railway posts in Annexure IV, in our view, must not operate against the appellant in getting promotion to the post of Ticket Collector.” (underlining by us for emphasis) Paragraph 510 of the IRMM deals with visual and vision test acuity of candidates serving railway employees. Therefore, the consideration in SKM Haider was confined to the classification based on visual acuity of the appellant. It was in that context that the observations as above were made by the Honourable Supreme Court. As far as the instant case is concerned, the consideration was with respect to the mental status of a candidate, which under no circumstance can be equated with visual acuity. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the decision in SKM Haider cannot ipso facto be made applicable to the case at hand. 13. In Devendra Kumar Pant, the Union of India had approached the Honourable Supreme Court, aggrieved by the decision of the High Court that, having regard to Section 47(2) of the PWD Act, no person could be denied promotion merely on the ground of disability, unless there was a notification exempting the establishment from the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. The employee in that case was classified as B2 and was working as such. For the purpose of promotion, he required the classification in B1 medical category, since the promotion post required colour perception in addition to the requirements prescribed for B2. The employee's contention that lack of colour perception or reduced colour perception was a disability and he being otherwise qualified, his promotion could not be denied on the ground of such disability in view of Section 47(2) was accepted by the High Court. The Honourable Supreme Court found the reasoning adopted by the High Court to be incorrect and proceeded to hold as follows:- “15. Sub-section (2) of section 47 deals with non-discrimination in promotion and provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability. The Honourable Supreme Court found the reasoning adopted by the High Court to be incorrect and proceeded to hold as follows:- “15. Sub-section (2) of section 47 deals with non-discrimination in promotion and provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability. This would mean that a person who is otherwise eligible for promotion shall not be denied promotion merely or only on the ground that he suffers from a disability. Thus section 47(2) bars disability per se being made a disqualification for promotion. To give an example, a person working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) suffering from the disability of low vision, cannot be denied promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) merely because of his disability. This is because the efficiency with which he functioned as a LDC will be the same while functioning as a UDC also and the disability as such will not affect his functioning in a higher post. But the position is different if the disability would affect the discharge of functions or performance in a higher post or if the disability would pose a threat to the safety of the co-employees, members of the public or the employee himself, or to the assets and equipments of the employer. If promotion is denied on the ground that it will affect the safety, security and performance, then it is not denial of promotion merely on the ground of his disability, but is denial of promotion by reason of the disability plus something more, that is adverse effect of the disability upon the employee's performance of the higher duties or functions attached to the promotional post. It is significant that section 47(2) does not provide that even if the disability comes in the way of performance of higher duties and functions associated with the promotional post, promotion shall not be denied. Section 47(2) bars promotion being denied to a person on the ground of disability, only if the disability does not affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of a promotional post. Section 47(2) bars promotion being denied to a person on the ground of disability, only if the disability does not affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of a promotional post. Where the employer stipulates minimum standards for promotion keeping in view safety, security and efficiency, and if the employee is unable to meet the higher minimum standards on account of any disability or failure to posses the minimum standards, then section 47(2) will not be attracted, nor can it be pressed into service for seeking promotion. In other words where the disability is likely to affect the maintenance of safety and security norms, or efficiency, then the stipulation of standards for maintaining such safety, security and efficiency will not be considered as denying a person with disability, promotion, merely on the ground of his disability. 16. When invoking or applying the provisions of the Act, it is necessary to keep in view that the intention of the Act is to give a helping hand to persons with disability so that they can lead a self-reliant life with dignity and freedom. But the intention of the Act is not to jeopardize the safety and security of the public, co-employees, or the employee himself or the safety and security of the equipments or assets of the employer nor to accept reduced standards of safety and efficiency merely because the employee suffers from a disability. In this case, office order No.4/1990 makes it clear that the minimum medical standards have been fixed taking into account the requirements in the medical manual with reference to interest of public safety, interest of the employee himself and fellow employees and in the interest of the administration. If any employee or group of employees are of the view that a particular minimum medical standard prescribed does not serve the interest of public safety, interest of the employee and fellow employees or the interest of administration, but has been introduced only with the intention of keeping a person with disability from securing the promotional post, it is always open to him or them to give a representation to the employer to review/revise the minimum medical standards. On such representation the employer will refer the issue to a committee of experts to take appropriate decision, if that was not already done. On such representation the employer will refer the issue to a committee of experts to take appropriate decision, if that was not already done. But once a decision regarding medical standards has been taken by the management bonafide and in the usual course of business on the report/recommendation of an expert committee, the same cannot be found fault with on the ground that it affects the right of a person with disability for promotion. 17. As noticed above, in this case the higher medical standard of B1 was prescribed not only for the post of Chief Research Assistant but for Senior Research Assistants and Junior Research Assistants. As the respondent with a B2 medical category clearance, had already been appointed as Senior Research Assistant, he cannot be reduced from that rank merely on the ground that under the revised guidelines, the post requires a B1 medical standard clearance. But when the issue of promotion comes up, the requirement of B1 medical standard cannot be dispensed with. It should be remembered that for Chief Research Assistant, the minimum medical standard was B1 even before the revision of standards whereby the medical standard for even Senior Research Assistant was revised from B2 to B1. The said standard having been fixed in the interest of the public safety, as also interest of the employee concerned, co-employees and administration, the respondent cannot, by relying upon section 47(2) of the Act, avoid subjecting himself to medical examination for ascertainment of B1 medical category fitness. 18. Prescription of a minimum medical standard for promotion should be considered as such, and should not be viewed as denial of a promotional opportunity to a person with disability. We may illustrate. When an advertisement for the post of a police inspector prescribes a minimum height or a minimum chest measurements or a minimum physical stamina, a person who lacks the same and therefore denied appointment, cannot contend that he is discriminated on the ground of physical disability. Firstly being short or very thin or lacking stamina is not a physical disability but a physical characteristic. Therefore in such a situation the question of applicability of the Act does not arise at all. If a person not having a colour perception is denied appointment to the post of a driver, he cannot complain that he is discriminated on the ground of his disability. Therefore in such a situation the question of applicability of the Act does not arise at all. If a person not having a colour perception is denied appointment to the post of a driver, he cannot complain that he is discriminated on the ground of his disability. Same would be the position where the colour perception is a required minimum standard for a particular post. A person not possessing it is not being denied appointment or promotion on the ground of disability. The denial is on the ground of non-fulfillment of a minimum required standard/qualification. Viewed accordingly, it will be seen that section 47(2) is not attracted at all. 19. Therefore we are of the view that the section 47(2) only provides that a person who is otherwise eligible for promotion shall not be denied promotion merely on the ground that he suffers from disability. The use of the words 'merely on the ground' shows that the section does not provide that if the disability comes in the way of performing the higher duties and functions associated with the promotional post, promotion shall not be denied. In other words promotion shall not be denied to a person on the ground of his disability only if the disability does not affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of a promotional post.” 14. The dictum in Devendra Kumar Pant is squarely applicable to the case at hand. The denial of promotion to the applicant is not on the reason of his disability. The Railway Establishment has prescribed medical classification B-2 for the post of Ticket Collector in view of the fact that the post requires interaction with other employees as well as the public. Paragraph 574 of IRMM lists out the posts to which staff recovered from mental illness should not be appointed. Sub-paragraph (f) of Paragraph 574 stipulates that staff recovered from mental diseases should not be entrusted with the duties connected with the travelling public which demand a firm control over temperament. The examples given are the posts/duties of Platform Inspector, Assistant Station Master, Booking Clerk, Ticket Collector etc. It is therefore clear that the prescription of higher classification and the interdiction from engaging persons recovered from mental illnesses for certain specified duties are in the interest of the employee, the travelling public and the establishment. The examples given are the posts/duties of Platform Inspector, Assistant Station Master, Booking Clerk, Ticket Collector etc. It is therefore clear that the prescription of higher classification and the interdiction from engaging persons recovered from mental illnesses for certain specified duties are in the interest of the employee, the travelling public and the establishment. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the non-consideration of the applicant for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector was not merely by reason of his disability. Insofar as Section 47(2) gives liberty to the employer to deny promotion to a person with disability, for reasons other than the disability, Paragraph 574(f) of the IRMM, which provides a reason other than disability, does not in any manner violate the mandate of Section 47(2) of the PWD Act. Hence, the findings in Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal that the IRMM cannot override Section 47(2) of the PWD Act and that the respondents are obliged under the said Sections to promote the applicant to the post of Ticket Collector are legally unsustainable. 15. The Tribunal also committed an error in finding that classification as medical category C1 is sufficient for appointment to the post of Ticket Collector and B2 classification is not required for the post. As observed in the earlier part of this judgment, the decision in SKM Haider was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of deficiency in vision test, which cannot be made equated with the case of a person with mental disabilities. The employer having found the employee to be unfit for promotion to a particular post, it is not for the Tribunal or this Court, to either compel the employer to promote the employee to that particular post or to provide him with an alternative post. The advances made in the treatment provided for mental illness and greater chances of complete recovery are all matters on which the expert body, namely 'the Medical Board', has to render opinion and it is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of a superior expert. The decision of the employer being for valid reasons, the Tribunal cannot compel the employer to arrive at a different decision. It is settled law that the power of judicial review is to be exercised only if the decision making process is found to be wrong and not if the decision is faulty. The decision of the employer being for valid reasons, the Tribunal cannot compel the employer to arrive at a different decision. It is settled law that the power of judicial review is to be exercised only if the decision making process is found to be wrong and not if the decision is faulty. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.727 of 2011 and R.A.No.39 of 2012. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed by setting aside Exts.P5 and P6. No orders as to costs.