IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6217 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8611 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ==========================================================

==========================================================

TUSHARKUMAR KARSANBHAI VINZUDA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SHUBHA B TRIPATHI(5597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. K.B.PUJARA, ADVOCATE for MR.VICKY B MEHTA, ADVOCATE(5597)

for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 in SCA No. 8611 of 2020 MR. MEET THAKKAR, AGP,for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 08/02/2022 CAV JUDGMENT

1 In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent, Gujarat Electricity Company of disqualifying them for the purposes of appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant on the basis that the petitioners are handicapped and colour blind.

2 Heard Mr. K.B.Pujara learned advocate appearing with Mr.Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Dipak Dave for the Board and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

3 For the purposes of the adjudication of these petitions, facts of Special Civil Application No. 8611 of 2020 are considered.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that on he clearing the higher secondary examination board in the year 2011 and having completed his industrial training course as Trade Electrician at the ITI Centre , Dhandhuka, and having cleared his apprenticeship training with the respondent Electricity Company, the petitioner when appointed as an Apprentice Lineman, was sent for medical examination and was declared fit and a certificate to that effect was issued on 20.10.2014. According to the petitioner at that time, the Certificate was issued after due verification of the petitioner’s vision etc. The petitioner continued to discharge duties from the year 2014 to 2017 as an Apprenticeship Lineman. After completion of the apprentice course, since the petitioner was eligible for getting appointment on the post of Electrical Assistant, he underwent a departmental examination and a Pole Climbing Test and was found eligible for being appointed as an Electrical Assistant. A merit list was published where the petitioner’s name appeared at serial no.7. On being referred to the Medical Board for his medical examination, and on being examined, the petitioners were declared unfit on account of colour blindness and a certificate to that effect was issued on 18.06.2020. This is the subject matter of challenge.

4 Mr. K.B.Pujara, learned advocate, appearing with Mr.Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, would draw the attention of the Court to the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer at the point of time when the petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Line- Man and submitted that once that certificate was issued certifying the petitioner to be medically fit at the time of his being selected for his appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant, the issuance of Medical Certificate dated 18.06.2020 is misconceived.

4.1 Relying on the Certificate at page 39, Mr.Pujara, learned advocate, would submit that the certificate is completely vague, in asmuch as, it only declares that the petitioner is unfit for duty as an Electrical Assistant as declared by the Opthalmology Board. No further certificate as to on what ba