ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) Jaipur Bench whereby the Original Application preferred by the petitioners questioning the orders dated 29.11.2019, 28.12.2016/17.10.2017 and 14.08.2017 issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for appointment under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (‘LARSGESS Scheme’), has been dismissed. 2. The respondents invited applications from the employees of various departments desirous of voluntary retirement from June 2016 to December 2016 under the LARSGESS Scheme. The petitioner No.1 applied for voluntary retirement and sought for appointment of his ward, the petitioner No.2. The name of the petitioner No.1 was included in the list of the employees eligible to get voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS Scheme. However, in the process of selection vide order dated 28.12.2016/10.01.2017 the petitioner No.2 was declared medically unfit for A/2 Medical category. The petitioner No.2 got himself examined in Government Medical College, SMS, Jaipur as well as in Anand Hospital & Eye Centre, Jaipur wherein his vision in both the eyes was found as 6/6. He preferred an appeal with the request for re-medical examination. The appeal was rejected by the respondents and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner No.2 vide communication dated 24.08.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an original application before the CAT, which was disposed of by the CAT vide order dated 23.03.2018 without giving any finding. The petitioners made yet another representation dated 15.05.2018 for re-medical examination of the petitioner No.2 and for giving appointment. The Ministry of Railways decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017. The petitioners filed misc. application for recalling the order dated 23.03.2018 to the extent of original application filed by the petitioners and decide the same on merits. The prayer was declined by the CAT vide order dated 20.08.2019 observing that it has no jurisdiction to recall its order. The representation of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2019. Assailing the orders passed as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred original application before the CAT, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. 3. The prayer was declined by the CAT vide order dated 20.08.2019 observing that it has no jurisdiction to recall its order. The representation of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2019. Assailing the orders passed as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred original application before the CAT, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.2 had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under the LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and, therefore, their claim could not have been rejected on the ground that the LARSGESS Scheme stands terminated by the Ministry of Railways w.e.f. 27.10.2017. Relying upon order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Siraswal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.219/2019, decided on 26.03.2019], learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.1 was yet to retire and the Medical Examination of the petitioner No.2 had already been conducted prior to 27.10.2017 and, therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to conduct re-medical examination of the petitioner No.2 and accord him appointment, if he is found medically fit for the post of Traffic Khalasi. 4. It is noticed that the CAT has dismissed the original application observing that the petitioner No.2 was found medically unfit not only by the Medical Board, but also by CMD, NWR, Jaipur and therefore, the petitioner’s case is not covered by the directions of the Apex Court in terms that only those cases to be considered where the wards had completed all formalities including medical examination etc. under the LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017, whose medical examination are over and the wards are found medically fit and the employees are yet to retire. The CAT further observed that when the Railways do not feel the ward to be medically fit on the basis of his vision for a safety post, then Court cannot sit in appellate jurisdiction so as to declare the petitioner medically fit for A/2 medical category. The CAT declined to direct re-medical examination of the petitioner No.2 on the basis of the report of private hospital. 5. Indisputably, the LARSGESS Scheme has been declared unconstitutional by the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 27.04.2016 passed in CWP No.7714/2016. The CAT declined to direct re-medical examination of the petitioner No.2 on the basis of the report of private hospital. 5. Indisputably, the LARSGESS Scheme has been declared unconstitutional by the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 27.04.2016 passed in CWP No.7714/2016. Pursuant to the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court as also the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 in SLP No.508/2018, the Ministry of Railways revisited the LARSGESS Scheme and decided to terminate the same w.e.f. 27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold and, therefore, no further appointment can be made under the Scheme. Of course, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not restrict the appointment in respect of the cases where the wards had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under the LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and were found fit but the employees were yet to retire. But, in the instant case the petitioner No.2 was found medically unfit by the Medical Board as also by CMD, NWR, Jaipur. We are in agreement with the view taken by the CAT that subsequent medical reports relied upon by the petitioner No.2 obtained by him on his own after medical examination, cannot be made basis for directing re-medical examination more so, when the LARSGESS Scheme already stands terminated w.e.f. 27.10.2017. It is pertinent to note that though at the relevant time when the petitioners applied for appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme, the petitioner No.1 was yet to retire, but admittedly now the petitioner No.1 already stands retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation and thus the question of his voluntary retirement from service also does not arise. In such a situation, if the petitioner is permitted to avail the benefit of LARSGESS Scheme already terminated, it will amount to extending appointment by inheritance, against the constitutional scheme governing public employment. 6. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the CAT does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.