Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.
Ganti Prajeet - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 11522 (W) of 2018
Decided On : 18-04-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Guha Thakurta, Anuj kumar Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Alok Kumar Banerjee, Pradyot Kumar Das, Advocates.
Employer's discretion in assessing medical fitness based on job requirements and potential impact of systemic ailments on employee performance and company's financial burden.
Headnote:
MEDICAL FITNESS - Employment Disqualification - Mines Rules, 1955, Medical Attendance Rules - The court discussed the Medical Attendance Rules, Mines Rules, 1955, and the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. It highlighted the employer's discretion in assessing medical fitness, the connection of the job with mining activities, and the potential impact of systemic ailments on an employee's performance and company's financial burden.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Management Trainee position, was initially found medically fit, but later declared unfit due to diabetes mellitus and colour blindness. He challenged the disqualification, alleging violations of Medical Attendance Rules and Mines Rules, and sought a writ for appointment and ancillary reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's disqualification was justified based on the job requirements, potential impact of systemic ailments, and employer's discretion in assessing medical fitness. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Issues: Disqualification based on medical unfitness, alleged violations of Medical Attendance Rules and Mines Rules, and the petitioner's challenge for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer has discretion in assessing medical fitness, the job's connection with mining activities justifies strict medical standards, and systemic ailments can impact an employee's performance and company's financial burden.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Coal India Limited the petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee in October 2017. The petitioner's name was included in the list of successful candidates. He was thereafter called for an interview and on October 24, 2017 he was offered the employment subject to his being found medically fit.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on November 22, 2017, he was called for a medical examination and in the report of the medical examination it was mentioned that he was suffering from diabetes mellitus. It was also mentioned that he would be re-examined after about a month. In the subsequent medical examination he was declared unfit due to colour blindness. He made an appeal before the appropriate authority for re-medical examination which was done by the respondent no. 2 and this time he was found unfit for the job due to both diabetes mellitus and colour blindness. Subsequently, he received a communication from the General Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) of Coal India Limited, i.e., the respondent no. 3 intimating him that the Medical Board had declared the petitioner unfit due to diabetes mellitus, hypertension and colour blindness. He further came to know that pursuant to the medical re-examination 13 trainees who were found to be medically fit were posted in subsidiary companies.
3. The petitioner has assailed the medical certificates as containing different diseases and different medical examinations. He got himself tested independently at a private hospital which certified that he was not suffering from colour blindness.
4. The petitioner alleges that the disqualification on the ground of medical unfitness was in violation of the Medical Attendance Rules of the respondent no. 2 and the Mines Rules, 1955 and were in violation of the principle of natural justice. The minimum physical standard required for recruitment to the posts other than those of Group - A do not state that a candidate would be disqualified in case he is diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and colour blindness. The respondents failed to consider that the petitioner is guided by Group - B of the Medical Attendance Rules which would be clear from the job profile of a material management employee. None of the Rules states that a material management trainee would be disqualified for appointment if he found to be suffering from diabetes mellitus or colour blindness.
5. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to set aside and rescind the letter, dated June 27, 2018 intimating the finding of the Medical Board declaring him unfit due to the diseases as mentioned above, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the employment of the respondent no. 2 and other ancillary reliefs.
6. The respondent no. 3 filed a report in the form of an affidavit. He refers to Clause 9(iv) of the concerned advertisement wherein it was recorded that before joining service the selected candidates would have to undergo an initial medical examination by the company medical board as per the Medical Attendance Rules. In the appointment letter issued to the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that his appointment was subject to the medical fitness as per the rules of the company. He had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. He repeatedly appeared before the medical examinations which had declared the petitioner unfit due to colour blindness. After he was declared unfit by the medical board the petitioner along with other candidates who were also declared medically unfit made appeal for re-consideration and on their appeal the management decided to hold further medical examination which was conducted on June 11 and 12, 2018. This time the petitioner was declared unfit due to three grounds as mentioned earlier. Therefore, since the petitioner was declared medically unfit the question of providing any employment did no
