Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D.K. SINGH, J.
Shaik Zakir Ahmed, S/o. Shaik Shakir Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
The Fertilizers And Chemicals Travancore Limited - Respondent
WP(C) No. 35315 of 2024
Decided on : 27-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ARUN CHANDRAN, HARIMOHAN, AMRITA ARUN, ASWATHY S MENON
For the Respondent: GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M – SC, JAI MOHAN, K. JOHN MATHAI (K/413/1984), JOSON MANAVALAN (J-526), KURYAN THOMAS (K/131/2003), PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM (MAH/58/2006), RAJA KANNAN (K/356/2008), VARSHA S. NAMBIAR (K/2792/2024)
An employer is entitled to reject a candidate based on medical evaluations of chronic conditions, underscoring the necessity of maintaining a healthy workforce.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Employment - Medical fitness for employment - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for Assistant General due to medical unfitness related to chronic Hepatitis B. Previous judgments directed re-examination; however, expert medical boards concluded unfitness due to communicable disease. The court emphasized that it cannot substitute expert medical opinions. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Employment Law - Employer's obligations - An employer is entitled to ensure a healthy workforce and can rely on objective medical evaluations in employment decisions. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the Assistant General position at a fertilizer company but was found unfit due to chronic Hepatitis B after multiple evaluations.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decision of the company based on reports confirming the petitioner's medical condition, deeming no error in the rejection process.
Issues: The key issues were the validity of the medical evaluations and the right of the employer to determine medical fitness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the opinion of an expert medical board binds the employment decision, affirming that employers must prioritize health in hiring.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criteria for medical fitness for employment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. judgment directing further medical examination. (Para 4) |
| 3. court upholds employer's medical decision. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
D.K. SINGH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Arun, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Mohan for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant General in the Fertilizers And Chemicals Travancore Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FACT’ for short). He was found unfit in the medical examination conducted by the Medical Officer of the FACT. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said medical report of the Medical Officer. The petitioner challenged the rejection on the ground of the report of the Medical Officer of FACT before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12311 of 2021. This Court vide the Judgment dated 11.08.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition directed the FACT to again examine the petitioner by constituting a Medical Board as per the procedure under Clause 11 of the “FACT Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure” within a period of one month. It was also said that if the Medical Board so constituted finds the petitioner to be medically fit, he should be granted employment.
3. In compliance of the said Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12311 of 2021, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted as per Clause 11 of the “FACT Pre-employment Medical Examination Procedure” and the three member Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for employment and the said report dated 16.11.2021 has been placed on record as Exhibit R-1(b) in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The Medical Board specifically noted that the viral load of the petitioner had increased, that too substantially in the last two years and liver functions tests and consistency of liver was showing pathological involvement of the organ. The Medical Board was of the opinion that the petitioner was holding Chronic Hepatitis B infection and the said disease was a communicable disease through blood and body fluids and in progressive pathological condition.
4. The petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid report and rejection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant General in the FACT. The petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29693 of 2022. This Court vide the Judgment dated 25.08.2023 in Exhibit P-23 allowed the writ petition and set aside the report of the Medical Board and directed the petitioner to be further medically examined by the Medical Board to be constituted preferably by a Government Hospital or Government Medical College. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide Judgment dated 25.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 29693 of 2022, the General Hospital of Ernakulam constituated a two member Board for examination of the petitioner. The report of the General Hospital of Ernakulam has been placed on record as Exhibit R-1(c) in the counter affidavit. On physical evaluation conducted by Dr. Anu C. Kochukunj who was one of the members of the Medical Board constituted by the General Hospital for examination of the petitioner found the petitioner had affected chronically with Hepatitis B. He had undergone treatment in private hospital for his health condition and he was required to adhere to the expert advise from Gastroenterologist in future. The Gastroenterology evaluation was conducted by Dr. Anoop Paulose. The report of Dr. Anoop Paulose would read as under;
“Gastroenterology Evaluation (DR. ANOOP PAULOSE)
❖ The patient is found to have a Case of chronic HBV infection as His HbsAg is positive for more than 6 months (first diagnosed in 2019)
❖ At present he is not having any cirrhosis according to available Ultrasound scan and Blood investigations. He is in chronic HBV infection state.
❖ All patients with chronic HBV infection are at increased risk of progression to cirrhosis and Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Depending on Host
