1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 22.5.2012 rejecting his case for employment on the ground that he was medically unfit for being employed in the respondents company at Tiruchirappalli on the basis of the existing rules.

2. When the writ petition came up on 7.6.2012, this court directed notice to be served on the respondents. Pending notice, an interim direction was granted to keep one post of Engineering Trainee vacant. The respondents subsequently entered appearance and has filed a counter affidavit, dated 25.7.2012 sworn to by the General Manager (Human Resource), BHEL.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned Standing Counsel for the BHEL.

4. The petitioner pursuant to the advertisement made by the respondents BHEL had applied for the post of Engineer Trainee. He belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. He became successful in the written test conducted by the respondents. Subsequently, he was called for an interview on 17.11.2011. Even in the interview, he was successful and the merit list was published in the internet. His name found a place as Serial No.49. He was selected even under the open category. A provisional offer for appointment was given on 31.01.2012. Thereafter, he was directed to report for duty at Trichy. He was sent for the medical examination. The medical examination was done by the company Doctors. He was disqualified from being given appointment on the ground that he was diabetic. The petitioner went back to his native place at Vellore and got his blood test done again both for fasting and post parandial. In both reports, he was found to be normal. Therefore, he had applied for reconsideration of the decision taken by the respondents. The Personnel Manual Rule 10 provides for reconsideration of the decision at the discretion of the General Manager and it reads as follows :

"10. To determine the medical fitness or otherwise of a person for appointment in the service of the Company is the sole and exclusive discretion of the management. However, in exceptional cases, where on an appeal and on the basis of evidence produced before him the General Manager is satisfied that there might have been an error of judgement in the decision of the Authorised Medical Officer as countersigned by the Competent Medical Authority, he may, at his discretion, refer the case for reconsideration/re-examination within 4 weeks from the date of the medical examination by the Authorised Medical Officer, by a Medical Board consisting of the Chief Medical Officer/Head of the Department of his Unit / establishment and two other Company Doctors not below the rank of Senior Medical Officer from any other Unit/ Units of the Company, subject to the following conditions:" (Emphasis added)

5. Exercising the power under the said Rule, the Deputy General Manager (HR), by a communication, dated 28.04.2012 directed the petitioner to appear before the medical board. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :

".....The competent authority has now decided to refer your case to a Medical Board for re-examination as per the prevalent rules.

Based on the decision, you are required to present yourself for medical examination before the duly constituted Medical Board on 07.05.2012. You are accordingly instructed to :-

1. Report at the Office of the Medical Superintendent, BHEL Main Hospital, Tiruchirapalli-14, at 8.00 A.M. on 07.05.2012 on an empty stomach."

6. It is pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board. However, the Medical Board, instead of conducting medical examination afresh, went through the existing records and opined that they have no reason to disagree with the earlier findings. The communication sent by the respondents based upon the medical board report reads as follows :

"Based on the appeal dated 08.03.2012, the competent authority had consti