Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ
PRAGATI KESHARWANI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA M/O PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS & ORS. – Respondent
LPA 494/2025 & CM APPL. 46865/2025 | CM APPL. 46866/2025 | CM APPL. 46867/2025 | CM APPL. 46868/2025 | CM APPL. 46869/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ranjan Mani
For the Respondents: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Anchal Kashyap, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Mr. Sarthak Srivastava

The principle of reasonable accommodation necessitates adjustments for disabled individuals, but does not mandate altering essential qualifications and standards set by employers for job safety.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(y), 3(5), and 20(2) - Appellant challenging rejection of appointment due to being medically unfit - The court ruled that medical standards must be maintained for job safety, and reasonable accommodation does not require altering essential job requirements. (Paras 6, 11, 30, 36)

(B) Medical examination standards - Appointment subject to passing medical examination per the company's medical rules; the employer has the discretion to determine suitability. (Paras 36, 40)

(C) Reasonable accommodation - A principle which necessitates adjustments, but not changes to essential qualifications. Court emphasizes the need for balance between accommodation and job safety. (Paras 28, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a qualified engineer with an orthopedic handicap, was offered a post but was later deemed temporarily medically unfit. The Chief Commissioner found that her rights were violated, but the ONGC refused to appoint her based on medical examinations.

Findings of Court:
There was no legal error in rejecting the application based on medical standards, and the appellant could not claim rights ignoring the specified requirements of the position.

Issues: The court considered whether the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the appellant's disabilities; its response rested on medical standards and safety.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that reasonable accommodation requires adjustments but does not entail changing the fundamental requirements of the role, which mandates clear physical standards for safety.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and the appellant's qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments for reasonable accommodation under the act. (Para 6 , 7)
3. respondent's rationale for medical disqualification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. summary of the appellant's challenges to the writ petitions. (Para 12 , 13)
5. principles derived from medical examination and reasonable accommodation. (Para 20 , 21)
6. discussion on the obligations of the respondent under the governing rules. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. significance of the respondent's discretion in determining suitability. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
8. court's dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of respondent's policies. (Para 36 , 39 , 40 , 41)

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the final Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned Judgment”), passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).13068/2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Writ Petition”), whereby the Appellant’s Petition, seeking quashing of Respondent No.’s letter dated 07.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned letter”) declaring her as “temporarily medically unfit”, was dismissed and the prayer of the Appellant, seeking reinstatement to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electronics) (hereinafter referred to as “AEE (Electronics)”) at the Respondent’s Hazira Plant, was also rejected.

2. The Appellant is a qualified engineer, holding a B.Tech. and M.Tech. Degree from Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as “IIT BHU”). She is an individual with orthopaedic handicap, suffering from Post Polio Residual Paralysis (PPRP) of the lower limb, resulting in 45% locomotor disability.

3. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India. Respondent No 2 and Respondent No. 3 are different functionaries of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”). For the sake of convenience, whenever required Respondent No. 2 and 3 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as ‘Respondent ONGC’.

4. Respondent ONGC is a Central Public Sector Undertaking and the largest Government owned Oil and Gas explorer and producer in the country. It had been established in the year 1956 and was conferred with the status of Maharatna in November 2010.

5. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Appeal are as under:

a. The Appellant appeared for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering Exam (hereinafter referred to as “GATE”) in the year 2017 and obtained an All India Rank of 9748. In response to Advertisement No 3/17 (R&P) issued by the Respondent ONGC, she applied for the post of AEE (Electronics) under the category of orthopaedically handicapped, one leg (OH-OL).

b. After being shortlisted, the Appellant was called for interview on 23.05.2017 and upon successfully clearing the same she was offered appointment to the post of AEE (Electronics) vide letter dated 24.07.2017, issued by Respondent ONGC.

c. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant underwent medical examination on 24.08.2017, wherein it was communicated to the Appellant that her left eye had reduced visual acuity of 6/60 on account of long standing partial retinal detachment.

d. Resultantly on 12.10.2017 the Appellant received an email from Respondent ONGC informing her that her appointment had been cancelled on medical grounds. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant raised a grievance on the Central Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring Portal (hereinafter referred to as the “CPGRAMS”) of Respondent No.1, whereafter, her case was taken up by Respondent No.2.

e. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of her grievance, the Appellant, on 14.12.2017, lodged a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as “the Chief Commissioner”).

f. It has been averred that pending adjudication of the Appellant’s complaint before the Chief Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 telephonically informed her to meet them on 07.03.2018 f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document