Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Shaik Zakir Ahmed S/o Shaik Shakir Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited - Respondent
W.A. No. 406 of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Arun Chandran, Amrita Arun, Aswathy S. Menon, Harimohan
For the Respondents: Jai Mohan, T.C. Krishna
Denying employment to individuals solely based on Hepatitis B infection is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for fair medical assessments.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Employment law - Discrimination based on medical conditions - The court addressed the validity of denying public employment due to Hepatitis B infection, ruling such treatment as discriminatory and violative of equality rights. (Paras 17, 22)
(B) Medical Evaluation - Pre-employment medical requirements by Public Sector Undertakings - The procedure and assessment of medical fitness for employment were analyzed, emphasizing the need for just and fair standards that do not discriminate against individuals based on chronic health conditions. (Paras 19, 22)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner sought to reverse the decision of the respondent, FACT, which denied him employment based on medical assessments indicating Chronic Hepatitis B. The court’s previous instructions had mandated a thorough examination and assessment for the candidate. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the medical justification for disqualification inadequate and determined that the applicant was fit for employment, notwithstanding his health condition, provided he adhered to universal precautions. (Paras 20-22)
Issues: The court evaluated whether denying employment solely on the health condition of Hepatitis B was justified and compliant with constitutional rights. (Para 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that denial of employment based only on a chronic health condition without proper assessment of job capability violates principles of equality and non-discrimination entrenched in Article 14. The assessment must consider individual capacity to perform work duties. (Paras 16, 22)
Result: Writ appeal allowed; decision denying employment quashed and directed to issue appointment letter within one month.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of employment medical fitness (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding employment discrimination (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's reasoning on medical evaluation and discrimination (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. illegality of employment denial based on hepatitis b (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
1. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Bench in W.P(C ) No.35315 of 2024, dated 27.01.2025 the writ petitioner preferred this writ appeal.
2. The writ petitioner, Shaik Zakir Ahmed, was an applicant for the post of Assistant General in the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the FACT” for short).
3. The FACT published Ext.P1 notification for the post of Assistant General from candidates who had secured graduation with 50% marks and having sound knowledge in office automation systems/computer knowledge. In response to Ext.P1 notification, the appellant/petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application through online mode. After completing the selection process, Ext.P6 rank list was published on 23.9.2019, wherein, the petitioner secured Rank No.2 for the post of Assistant General. Thereafter, a medical examination was conducted in which, the appellant/petitioner was found unfit by the medical officer of the FACT. The appellant preferred the writ petition against the decision of the medical officer and also challenged the rejection of his candidature before this Court preferring W.P(C )12311 of 2021.
4. This Court vide judgment in W.P.(C) 12311 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021, directed the FACT to examine the petitioner by constituting a Medical Board as per Clause 11 of the FACT Pre-Employment the Medical Examination Procedure within a period of two weeks. In that order it was made clear that if the medical board so constituted finds the petitioner to be medically fit, the petitioner should be granted employment.
5. In compliance with the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.12311 of 2021, the appellant/petitioner was examined by the medical board consisting of three members. Ext.R1(b) is the report of the Medical Board, in which the Board opined that, the petitioner has Chronic Hepatitis B Infection and the said disease is a communicable disease through blood and body fluids and also a progressive pathological condition.
6. Dissatisfied with the report of the Medical Board the appellant/petitioner preferred W.P(c) 29693 of 2022. This Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2023 (Ext.P23), allowed the writ petition and set aside the report of the Medical Board and directed the petitioner to a further Medical examination by the Medical Board to be constituted preferably by a Government Hospital or a Government Medical College.
7. Accordingly, the medical board consisting of two members was constituted and examined the petitioner. Ext.R1(c) is the report of the Medical Board and again found him medically unfit.
8. As per the impugned judgment, the learned single bench dismissed the writ petition holding that, the petitioner was found medically unfit by R1(b) and R1(c) reports and therefore, the Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , so as to substitute the opinion of the expert committee.
9. The learned standing counsel for the FACT Adv.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar supported the judgment of the learned Single Bench. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is legally sustainable, and no interference is warranted in this matter.
10. On the other hand, Adv.Arun Chandran, submitted that the learned Single Bench ought not have dismissed the writ petition. It was submitted that the learned Single Bench merely accepted selective fragments of the sequential events leading to Ext.P27 letter of rejection.
11. The respondent/FACT, while issuing Ext.P27 communication, cancelling the offer of appointment to the appellant, failed to make available a copy of the Medical Report which w
