PRASANTH KUMAR PRABHAT v. THE UNION OF INDIA

3

petitioner, Ext.P6 is issued with malafide intention without assigning the adequate reason for the alleged medical unfitness and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court of Patna challenging Ext.P6, but the said petition was not entertained as the High Court of Patna lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, he has approached this court filing this petition with the following prayers:

(i)Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash Ext.P6 dated 8.6.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent, to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to restore the Ext.P3 offer of appointment, and employ the petitioner as Management Trainee (Chemical) in the 2nd respondent company, as recruited pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification and consequential Ext.P2 rank list and execution of bond on joining duty.

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the Writ Petition. As per Ext.P1 notification clause 8.0 specifically states that every candidate offered appointment in the company shall

4

be required to obtain medical fitness certificate before being allowed to join the services of the company and the opinion of the Medical Officer authorised by the company shall be final. Ext.R2(a) is the Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure. The respondent company is a notified major accident hazard industry and therefore, medical examination and passing of fit is a mandatory one. In Ext.P3 clause 13 is incorporated which reads as follows:

"Your appointment is subject to the condition that you are medically fit, and continuing to be medically fit during the period of employment."

4. It also states that if certified medically fit after medical examination and after submission of all requisite documents, the petitioner shall report for duty at the H.R. department. Thus, the appointment was subject to the conditions enumerated in Ext.P3. On medical examination,

5

it was found that the petitioner was suffering from colour vision abnormality (colour blindness). The importance of proper vision and identification of colour in the chemical industry is a must. Colour codes are important in Major Accident Hazard in chemical installation workplace. Colour codes and signs are commonly used in chemical industries. Painting the equipments, including machines, water lines and chemical lines, according to colour coding standards allow the industry to be protected and minimise the risk of errors at workplace accidents. Ext.P6 communication was issued to the petitioner on 8.6.2021, but the Writ Petition is filed only on January 2022. Though the petitioner has raised a contention that he has approached before High Court of Judicature at Patna, he has not produced any documents to substantiate the same.

5. Ext.R2(b) is a copy of the petitioner's email dated 26.8.2021 sent to the company in which it is admitted by the

6

petitioner that he is taking treatment for colour vision deficiency and has improved a lot within 2 months. Therefore, there is a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court. Moreover, the vacancy reserved for ST category pursuant to Ext.P1 notification has been filled and there is no vacancy for accommodating the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard Shri R Lakshmi Narayanan, counsel for the petitioner, learned ASGI, Shri S Manu for 1^strespondent and Adv.Jai Mohan, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

7. The counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on clause Nos.5.4 to 5.6 and also 9.2 of Procedure for Medical Examination [Ext.R2(a)] in Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure, clause 5 deals with Procedure for Medical Examination. As per clause 5.4, the Medical Officer is given the sole discretion/the right to re-examine

7

or review the medical reports before the candidate is finally declared "FIT/UNFIT". The Medical Officer may require the candidate to repeat one or more clinical tests or undergo further investigation/ expert medical opinion, as deemed fit, based on the candidate's clinical assessment. Clause 9.2 prescribes that candidates who have been declared Provisionally unfit, had to retest to determine fitness and an expert opinion to be established on whether the above applicable conditions, would not result in complications leading to reduce ability (in meeting the minimum standards) to perform the assignment tasks.

8. The answer by the counsel for respondents is that clause 5.4 to 5.6 give the Medical Officer the full discretion of the right to re-examine or review. When the Medical Officer, after having examined the petitioner found that the

8

petitioner is not medically fit, the petitioner cannot claim any appointment to the company.

9. The counsel for the respondents relied on two judgment of the apex court in State Bank Of India v. G.K Deshak . [1994 Supp. (1) SCC 70] and also Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another v. Smt. Shashi Gupta [AIR 1994 SC 1241] and contended that the scope of judicial review in respect of medical fitness by a Doctor is very limited. Specialist doctors opining that the candidate is unfit on account of a serious defect cannot be overturned in the absence of the allegation that the departmental authorities acted malafide or malice.

10. The appointment order specifically states that the petitioner has to undergo medical fitness and the Doctor, who examined the petitioner has opined that the petitioner was medically unfit for the employment as the employment

9

is to a post which involves chemicals and colour codes are mostly used. Since the defect of the petitioner's eye is in relation to colour blindness, the doctor's opinion becomes the paramount consideration. The specialist Doctor's opinion cannot be substituted by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

dl/