AKHIL MOHAN v. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Akhil Mohan, applied for the post of Craftsman (Electrical) in response to a notification issued by the 1st respondent (The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.). He was selected and placed at Rank No. 4 in the merit list and was issued an appointment letter to join on 25/03/2024. After undergoing the Pre-Employment Medical Examination, the petitioner received Ext.P6 (an e-mail communication) stating he was medically unfit; Ext.P6 did not disclose the reason for unfitness. On inquiry, the petitioner understood the alleged ground to be Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The petitioner, aged 26, produced two laboratory reports: Ext.P5 dated 23/03/2024 (HbA1C = 6.0%) and Ext.P7 dated 04/05/2024 (HbA1C = 5.6%). He filed this writ petition seeking quashing of Ext.P6 and a direction to respondents to obtain a Diabetes Mellitus report from the Medical Board under the FACT Pre-Employment Medical Examination procedure based on fresh medical tests.

On admission (21/05/2024) the Standing Counsel for respondents was directed to ascertain and place the reason for unfitness before the Court. The respondents produced laboratory reports dated 18/03/2024 (HbA1C = 6.6%) and 17/03/2024 from St. Josephs Hospital, Manjummal (HbA1C = 7). The matter was then considered and disposed on 23/05/2024 by the single-judge bench.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner can challenge the medical unfitness communication (Ext.P6) when the communication did not disclose the reason for medical disqualification.
2. Whether the alternative remedy (appeal under Clause 11 of Ext.P4/Pre-Employment Medical Examination Procedure to the Chairman and Managing Director for examination by a Medical Board) is an effective and available remedy in the circumstances.
3. Whether a single laboratory test suffices to hold a candidate medically unfit for employment on the ground of diabetes, or whether a detailed evaluation by a medical specialist is required under Clause 6.1.9(iii) of Ext.P4.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents contended that an effective alternative remedy exists: an appeal under Clause 11 of Ext.P4 (Pre-Employment Medical Examination Procedure) against the decision of the Medical Head to the Chairman and Managing Director, who may order examination by the Medical Board. Accordingly, the petitioner could have availed that appellate remedy instead of approaching this Court.
• In support of their position on medical unfitness, the respondents produced laboratory reports showing higher HbA1C values (18/03/2024: 6.6%; 17/03/2024: 7.0%).

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner submitted that he was not served with the laboratory report or any document disclosing the reason for medical unfitness; Ext.P6 did not reveal the ground, thereby preventing him from filing the internal appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director.
• The petitioner relied on his own laboratory reports (Ext.P5 and Ext.P7) showing lower HbA1C values (6.0% and 5.6% respectively) and sought a fresh evaluation by the Medical Board under the procedure.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by addressing the respondents' contention regarding the existence of an alternative remedy and the petitioner's inability to avail it. The Court observed that Ext.P6 did not disclose the reason for medical unfitness and therefore it would be unfair to fault the petitioner for not invoking the internal appellate remedy earlier when he was not furnished with the report that disclosed the basis for disqualification.

Having been furnished with the reason for unfitness during proceedings (the HbA1C reports produced by the respondents showing 6.6% and 7.0%), the Court held the petitioner is now able to invoke the appellate mechanism under Clause 11 of Ext.P4 and may produce his own supporting documents (Exts.P5 and P7) to contradict the respondents' test results.

The Court examined Clause 6.1.9(iii) of Ext.P4 and noted that it mandates a detailed evaluation by a medical specialist if diabetes levels are found abnormal. The judge concluded that a single laboratory test is not sufficient to hold a candidate medically unfit for employment and that the 1st respondent is therefore obliged to conduct the detailed evaluation contemplated by Clause 6.1.9(iii).

On the basis that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case and in light of the procedural requirements of Ext.P4, the Court fashioned relief directing the petitioner to invoke the internal appellate remedy and directing the Chairman and Managing Director to dispose of that appeal promptly. The Court also directed an interim administrative step to protect the petitioner's position pending the internal decision.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition was disposed with the following principal directions:

• The petitioner is directed to file an appeal invoking Clause 11.1 of Ext.P4 (Pre-Employment Medical Examination Procedure) with supporting documents (including Exts.P5 and P7) within one week from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
• The Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent is directed to take appropriate action on the appeal and dispose of it within one month.
• The 1st respondent is directed to keep one post of Draftsman (Electrical) (notified by the 1st respondent) vacant until the Chairman and Managing Director takes a decision on the appeal.

Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner must now pursue the internal appellate remedy; the 1st respondent must conduct or permit the detailed medical evaluation required by Clause 6.1.9(iii) if diabetes is implicated, and must decide the appeal within the stipulated timeframe. The decision does not record the setting of any new legal precedent; it disposes of the petition by directing compliance with the internal procedure and by protecting the petitioner's immediate opportunity to be appointed pending the outcome.