Tarun Bhatnagar vs Dmrc & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1644 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     WP(C) No. 2025/2004


TARUN BHATNAGAR                                    ..... Appellant
                           Through          Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate

                                     Versus

DMRC          & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                           Through          Mr. Vibhu Shankar, Advocate with
                                            Mr. Sunil Kr. Sinha, Joint General
                                            Manager (Recruitment & Training)
                                            DMRC

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                       Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?                       Yes.



                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the prescription

and application of 'B-2' medical standard for appointment to the post

of Senior System Analyst (ERP) Functional Modules (Non-Executive),

hereinafter referred to as Senior System Analyst, with the

Respondent Corporation.

2. The facts of the present case are that the Respondent

Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for various

executive and non-executive posts. One of the posts advertised was

Senior System Analyst. The advertisement contemplated a three-

stage selection process comprising of a written test, personal

interview followed by a medical test. It was clarified in the

advertisement that the candidates who fail in the prescribed medical

tests will not be given any alternative employment.

3. According to the Respondent Corporation, the medical standard

applicable to the post of Senior System Analyst is that of category of

B-2. Under this category the permissible limit of glasses is upto 4

diopter. Admittedly, in the instant case the Petitioner has deficiency

of minus 5 in the left eye and minus 4.5 in the right eye. It is the

Respondent Corporation's case that for this reason, the Petitioner

was not found suitable for being appointed to the post of Senior

System Analyst.

4. Mr. Datar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that

firstly there was no medical standard prescribed in the Respondent

Corporation's advertisement and secondly the said standard had no

relation with the function to be discharged by the Petitioner, which

was primarily of a clerical nature. Mr. Datar stated that in the case of

scheduled caste candidates, the Respondent Corporation had

applied a lower medical criteria than stipulated in B-2 and, therefore,

the vision standard was not mandatory. Mr. Datar lastly stated that

the medical criteria adopted by the Respondent Corporation for the

vision test was even higher than the one prescribed by the Indian

Railways.

5. Mr. Vibhu Shankar, learned counsel for the Respondent

Corporation, contended that the job of a Senior System Analyst is not

of a clerical nature as he has to oversee and maintain all on board

computerised train equipments and operation systems that means

automatic train protection, automatic train operation, train information

and management system. According to him the Senior System

Analyst has to download all failure reports on train while it is running

and he has to maintain all computer based singnalling, automatic fare

collection system. A Senior System Analyst has even to do

immediate trouble shooting which involves frequent movement of line

and trains and to rectify snags of tele communications system.

6. Mr. Vibhu Shankar also drew my attention to a judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP

6347/2003. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:-

"+CW 6347/2003 & 11111/2003 * This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by non-appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Ms. Salwan has contended that the petitioner has Amblyopia in his right eye. She has contended that Amblyopia is a medical term which means a lazy eye. However, the petitioner has got accurate vision of 6/6 in the left eye. The appointment of the petitioner was rejected on medical ground. Ms. Salwan has contended that the petitioner is fit in any normal desk work related with his post. Ms. Salwan has also relied upon medical opinion given by doctor who is specialist in Ophthalmology.

On the other hand, Mr. Virender Sood, learned counsel for respondent/DMRC has contended that the work in the DMRC project is not only desk work but passenger safety is paramount importance and for purposes of structural designing a person has to work day and night in unfriendly conditions and person has to be absolutely fit to perform the job. He has further contended that if this Court interferes then that will open flood gate with regard to the selection of fitness personnel to the job.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a very prestigious project and passenger safety has to be taken into consideration. The choice of the personnel to be appointed has to be left with the specialist and expert knowledge of the respondent. Interference from the Court should be minimum as far as recruitment of personnel is concerned because the parameters of requirement and efficiency by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation should not only be higher but superior to other existing communication infrastructure in the Country. Petitioner may be a brilliant person, he may be otherwise fit for performing a desk work but this Court will not substitute its own opinion as far as fitness to perform work is concerned for that of the respondent. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. Same is dismissed.

Petition is dismissed".

7. Mr. Vibhu Shankar states that even in the Indian railways for

similar posts the same medical category is being applied. In this

context, Mr. Vibhu Shankar has drawn my attention to the Indian

Railway Medical Manual.

8. Mr. Vibhu Shankar further stated on instructions that the

Respondent Corporation had applied the same medical standard to

all candidates from all streams including reserved categories.

9. Having heard the parties at length and having perused the

record, this court is of the view that the medical standards to be

applied for any post is the job of an expert and this Court will only

interfere if the same is arbitrary or vitiated by malice or the standard

has no rational to the object sought to be achieved. In the present

case, keeping in mind the functions to be discharged by a Senior

System Analyst, this Court is of the view that the standards of vision

being applied by the Respondent are not very stringent. In fact a

uniform vision standard has been applied to all the candidates who

had applied for the post of Senior System Analyst and as the

standard is in conformity with the one prescribed in Indian Railways

Medical Manual, the same cannot be said to be either irrational or

vitiated by malice.

10. Consequently, the present Petition being devoid of merits is

dismissed but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 rb