AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SHAIK ZAKIR AHMED v. THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

    PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943

    WP(C) NO. 12311 OF 2021

    PETITIONER:

    SHAIK ZAKIR AHMED

    AGED 29 YEARS

    S/O. SHAIK SHAKIR AHMED, DOOR NUMBER 08-04-137, MUSLIM

    STREET RANGANAYAKULA PET, NELLORE, SPS NELLORE

    DISTRICT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN CODE 524 001

    BY ADVS.

    ARUN CHANDRAN

    HARIMOHAN

    RESPONDENTS:

    1 THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED

    REGISTERED OFFICE AT ELOOR., UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI

    PINCODE 683501 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

    2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

    HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, THE FERTILISERS AND

    CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT

    ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI PIN CODE 683501

    BY ADVS.

    M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

    K.JOHN MATHAI

    JOSON MANAVALAN

    KURYAN THOMAS

    PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

    RAJA KANNAN

    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

    11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

    1

    2

    JUDGMENT

    The petitioner alleges that solely because he has been diagnosed to be suffering from Hepatitis B, the 1strespondent has denied him employment, as is evident from Exts.P11 and P14. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the said orders be quashed and 1strespondent be directed to offer him employment based on the results of the recruitment process, namely Ext.P7.

    2. Sri.Jayamohan - learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for the respondents, answered the afore submissions of the petitioner, made by his learned counsel - Sri.Arun Chandran, saying that the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled since the examining Medical Officer of the Company found him to be medically unfit. He argued that if the petitioner has any further grievance against the same, he can certainly present himself before a Medical Board constituted by the 1strespondent Company, under mandate of "The FACT Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure". He pointed out that, as per Clause 11 of the said procedure, the Medical Board will comprise of the head of the medical services of the 1strespondent - Company, along with the Medical Officer of another Public Service

    3

    Undertaking/Department and an independent specialist. Sri.Jayamohan submitted that if the petitioner is willing to submit himself for examination by this Medical Board, his grievances will stand allayed, especially because his singular allegation is that the Company has found him medically unfit without following due procedure.

    3. On hearing Sri.Jayamohan as afore, Sri.Arun Chandran submitted that his client has no objection in appearing before the Medical Board as mentioned above; but prayed that if the said Board finds in his favour, then the 1strespondent be directed to offer him employment, based on Ext.P7, forthwith thereafter.

    4. The afore submissions of Sri.Arun Chandran certainly are compelling and am certain that this writ petition deserves to be disposed of such terms.

    Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1strespondent to constitute a competent Medical Board under Clause 11 of the

    "FACT Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure" within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, who will thereafter notify the petitioner to appear before

    4

    them. Since the petitioner is stated to be traveling from Andhrapradesh, the Medical Board will give him sufficient time to appear before them; and he will be then subjected to a proper examination, leading to an apposite opinion to be recorded by them. The afore procedure shall be completed by the Medical Board within a period of one month from the date on which they are constituted in terms of the afore directions.

    Needless to say, if the Medical Board so constituted finds the petitioner to be medically fit to be granted employment, the 1st respondent will then advert to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court as also Exts.P11 and P12 certificates and offer employment to the petitioner based on Ext.P7 offer letter given to him in the year 2019, dehors Ext.P11 and P14.

    Sd/-

    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    JUDGE

    SAS/11/08/2021

    6

    2020 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER VIA E-MAIL ON 15-04-2020

    Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01-01-2020

    Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SHORT

    LISTED

    Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-09-2020

    Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LITERATURE ON HEPATATIES B OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION DATED 27-07-

    2020

    Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR

    1997 BOM.406

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SHAIK ZAKIR AHMED v. THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED
    (Aug 11, 2021)