JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents have wrongly declared him unfit on account of his visual constraint.

2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner having requisite educational qualification applied for the post of Materials Management Officer, pursuant to the advertisement dated 3/18 (R&P) (Annex.-1) issued by the respondent – Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’).

3. It is to be noted that by the advertisement above referred, total 49 seats were notified, out of which, 19 seats were reserved for Visually Handicapped persons and one was earmarked for Hard of Hearing person. Furthermore, it was specifically mentioned in the subject advertisement that the post is suitable for OA, OL, BL, HH and LV category (One Arm, One Leg, Both Legs, Hard of Hearing and Lower Vision) category of persons.

4. The petitioner submitted his application form as an OBC category candidate and not as PH category candidate, though, he was visually impaired 30%.

5. Petitioner was found meritorious and was offered appointment by way of an order dated 25.09.2018, subject to production of certificate of medical fitness from the Medical Officer of the respondent – Corporation. When the petitioner was subjected to medical examination, the board opined that as per the medical certificate, the petitioner does not have binocular vision for having impairment in his left eye to the extent of 30% and hence, he is unfit.

6. When the petitioner was not allowed to join, he made a detailed representation dated 14.10.2018 addressed to the Chairman of the respondent – Corporation and highlighted that he stood meritorious without claiming reservation as ‘PH’ category candidate and that he (having 30% disability) cannot be denied appointment, when persons with greater degree of visual impairment are given reservation and offered appointment.

7. Petitioner’s request for review – relook came to be turned down by way of impugned communication dated 27.11.2018. The relevant extract of the impugned communication is reproduced thus:-

“3. As per the medical norms of ONGC, the candidate should have good Binocular Vision. For regular appointment one-eyed persons are to be regarded as unfit. However, as indicated in ONGC MER-1 form, it has been mentioned that you do not have Binocular Vision. As per the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by I/c-Medical Services. ONGC, Mumbai, you have been declared medically unfit, as you are not fulfilling the above condition.”

8. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner while accepting the fact that the petitioner is having 30% impairment in his left eye submitted that the respondents’ action of declaring him medically unfit is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

9. He argued that when the post of Materials Management Officer has been earmarked for reservation to visually handicapped persons and as many as 19 posts have been earmarked and further fact that such post has been held suitable for Blind and Low Visioned (BL and LV) persons, declaring petitioner who has lesser disability (of 30%) to be unfit for the post is unreasonable.

10. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner cannot be discriminated simply because of having a lesser impairment or being less disabled than the benchmark disability which would have made him entitled to claim reservation as a ‘PH’ category candidate. It was argued that it was preposterous to see that the respondents are considering persons having 40% or more disability in their eyes to be suitable for appointment while treating the petitioner unfit for having 30% impairment in his eye.

11. Learned counsel emphatically argued that unless the petitioner claims reservation as a blind person or person with low vision, his percentage of disability in his eye cannot come in his way of getting appointment, particularly, when the persons who have similar impairment are treated fit to be appointed on the post in qu