Disposed

B. Balraj s v. The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014WP/12786/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging rejection from a job post due to diabetes. Noting petitioners were unaware of their condition, it directed the company to re-examine them via the same medical board within eight weeks before deciding eligibility. The Madras HC decision relied upon was noted but distinguished in subsequent appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-company to subject petitioners to medical examination once again by the same medical board and report outcome within eight weeks.

B. Balraj s Vs The Bharat Heavy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION Nos.12758 and 12786 OF 2014 COMMON ORAL ORDER:

¶2

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-company, apart from perusing both the records.

¶3

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions lies in a narrow compass, the writ petitions are disposed of at the admission stage itself by this common oral order.

¶4

Shorn of extraneous particulars, the issue in brief is that the petitioners in both the writ petitions, possessing the requisite qualifications, applied to the posts of artisan in the respondentcompany in response to its notification dt.10.10.2013. During the course of selection process, when the petitioners were subjected to medical examination, it came to light that the petitioners had been suffering from diabetes and accordingly on the ground of medical invalidation, their candidature was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.

¶5

The respondent-company on its part filed its counter affidavits and contested the matters.

¶6

The singular grievance of the petitioners, as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that until they were subjected to medical examination during the course of selection process by the Medical Officer of the respondentcompany, they had no knowledge that they had been afflicted by diabetes. In any event, not being convinced by the findings of the Medical Officer of the respondent company, the petitioners, contends the learned counsel, have independently got themselves

¶7

checked by doctors elsewhere. According to the learned counsel, on all those occasions when they subjected themselves to independent medical examination, the results were either in the negative or the sugar levels were within the manageable limits. Accordingly, placing reliance on a Judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND DIVISIONAL PERSONAL MANAGER v. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH AND ANOTHE R^[1] , the learned counsel has urged this Court to issue a direction to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners by subjecting them once again to medical examination.

¶8

Per contra, Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-company has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners. Drawing the attention of this Court to the material filed along with the counter affidavits, the learned standing counsel would submit that there was no absolute bar against recruiting candidates suffering with diabetes. In fact, certain parameters have been fixed with regard to the sugar levels under which a candidate could be eligible to be appointed. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, at the time of medical examination, the readings were high, thus disabling them from being in the contention to be appointed to any post. The learned counsel has also stated that the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, which has been relied on by the petitioners, has further been subjected to scrutiny in intra court appeal by learned Division Bench. According to the learned standing counsel, modifying the directions of the learned single Judge, the learned Division Bench has held that the candidate therein should be examined by the medical board of the company

¶9

itself but not by a private doctor as had been directed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel urged this Court to dismiss the writ petitions as have been devoid of merits.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioners is that the medical invalidation of the petitioners is discriminatory and inequitable. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had never been informed about their condition even at the time of medical examination, but only when their candidature was rejected, they came to know of the reason that weighed with the authorities. Under those circumstances, the petitioners have urged this Court that they be given another opportunity to establish that they have not been suffering from diabetes or in the alternative the sugar levels are within the manageable limits, as has been mandated under the column of medical fitness in the recruitment regulations of the respondent-company.

¶11

This Court thus feel that there is justification in the request of the petitioners, especially in the face of the fact that even they too were not aware of the alleged disorder or disease when they were for the first time subjected to medical examination during the course of selection process by the respondent company. It is axiomatic to observe that in a country like India, the diabetes has assumed endemic proportions and by one reckoning 40% of population suffers from it. Under those circumstances, the learned single Judge of Madras High Court has preferred to call it a disorder rather than a disease. Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will subserve the interest of justice if the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to subject the petitioners to medical examination once again, though by the same medical board, and

¶12

based on the outcome in the said re-examination, the respondentcompany may take appropriate action in tune with the selection process of the company, concerning the eligibility of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders there on.

¶13

With the above observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Needless to observe that the respondent company shall conclude the process of re-examination and consequential steps thereof as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________________ JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶15

Date:12.06.2014 Rns

¶16

[1] Manu/TN/1452/2013

B. Balraj s v. The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Balraj s v. The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Mahabub Basha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.B.Naik, E-427158, Apsrtc Driver S/o.Gopal Naik Vs The Apsrtc rep by its Vice Chairman and

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Rajampet. Vs D.R. Mohan, S/o Subbaiah, Aged 43 years, Conductor

Malluru Subhadra, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

P.v.Subba Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Swapna Vs The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)