Delhi High Court
Anshul Jain vs Dedicated Freight Corridor ... on 19 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4410/2013
% 19th February, 2015
ANSHUL JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate.
Versus
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner seeks employment to the post of Assistant Manager
(Finance) with the respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner has
cleared both the written test and the interview. Petitioner has been
disqualified by the respondent no.1 on account of his medical condition
which states that petitioner can only see with one eye. Respondent no.1
therefore has found the petitioner to be unfit for employment in the C-1
category being the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) and for which post
as per the advertisement persons such as the petitioner were specified as
ineligible.
2. It is not disputed before this Court by the petitioner that the post
of Assistant Manager (Finance) is a C-1 post and for C-1 posts the medical
standards have been specifically stated in the advertisement. In the said
advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 for the post in question, and
which is no.4/2012 of August, 2012, it is specifically mentioned that for C-1
posts, persons who have complete vision in only one eye would not be
considered as fit for employment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
following rule of the respondent no.1 to argue that the petitioner is qualified
for being appointed to the post in question, and which Rule 503(g)(iii) reads
as under:-
"Rule 503(g)(iii) One eyed person:- For all technical services, all
posts in the medical department, all posts in Railway protection
force, and Chemists and Metallurgists, one eyed persons should be
considered unfit. These will include cases where there may be
normal vision in one eye but the other eye is amblyopic or has
subnormal vision resulting in lack of stereoscopic vision. However
for employment in other categories the medical board may
recommend such one eyed persons provided that it is satisfied that
he/she can perform all the functions of the particular job for which
he/she is a candidate, provided further that the visual acuity in the
functioning eye is 6/6 for distant vision, and J.I for near vision with
or without glasses, provided error in any meridian is not more than
4.D for distant vision, and normal color vision where ever required."
4. A reading of the aforesaid rule shows that there are two
specified requirements for appointments of persons who have vision only in
one eye. First requirement is that the medical board of the respondent
no.1/employer must give a report that the post in question is such that a one
eyed person can perform all the functions of the post of Assistant Manager
(Finance). The second requirement is of the aspect that the post of Assistant
Manager (Finance)/C-1 post can be filled up if the medical board
recommends that a one eyed person can perform all the functions of the
particular job and further that the visual acuity in the functioning eye is 6/6
for distant vision, and J.I for near vision with or without glasses, provided
error in any meridian is not more than 4.D for distant vision, and normal
color vision where ever required.
5(i). So far as the first requirement is concerned, petitioner
obviously could not point out that the medical board of the respondent no.1
has given a report that a C-1 post of Assistant Manager (Finance) is a post
to which a one eyed person can be appointed inasmuch as such a person can
perform all the functions of the said post. Obviously, petitioner could not
have filed such a report of the medical board of the respondent no.1
inasmuch as in the advertisement itself the respondent no.1 had clearly
mentioned that the post in question would not be available with respect to
persons having vision only in one eye.
(ii) So far as the second requirement is concerned, and assuming
that for the second requirement petitioner has filed a medical certificate to
show that the second requirement as stated above is fully complied with, the
same is of no effect because the second requirement aspect will come in only
if the first requirement was satisfied and which is not so. In law, it is the
employer who will decide in terms of the first requirement whether the post
in question is or is not one which is available for a one eyed person, and
admittedly the medical board of the respondent no.1 has not given any report
of the post in question being fit for appointment of a one eyed person.
6. In my opinion, there is another reason to dismiss this petition
because the petitioner has not challenged by filing an appeal the rejection
letter dated 1.5.2013 which specifically allows the petitioner to file an appeal
from the said order, and which appeal had to be filed within 21 days
alongwith a medical practitioner's certificate having a specific format as
stated in the letter dated 1.5.2013. Petitioner has not filed the appeal, and
much less with filing the certificate of the medical practitioner in the form as
stated in the letter dated 1.5.2013 and thus this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. It is settled law that Courts do not substitute their opinion for
the opinion and requirements of the employer as regards a candidate
fulfilling the requirement of a particular eligibility criteria with respect to a
particular post. This Court neither has the expertise to go into the question
as to whether the eligibility criteria given by the employer for the post in
question is or is not justified. Also, this Court has no reason not to accept
the standards of employment given by the respondent no.1 inasmuch as this
aspect was specifically stated in the advertisement in question and petitioner
was all along aware of the requirement. Therefore, once the petitioner does
not satisfy the requirement of medical fitness in both the eyes, merely
because petitioner has cleared the tests will not mean that petitioner will be
entitled to appointment.
8. I may also state that petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition
challenging the letter dated 1.5.2013 in W.P.(C) No.3934/2013 but this writ
petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the letter dated
1.5.2013, but petitioner did not challenge this letter dated 1.5.2013 by filing
of the appeal alongwith the certificate of the medical practitioner as stated
above but instead filed this petition, and therefore petitioner once again is
totally unjustified in approaching this Court on the same basis which existed
at the time of filing of the W.P.(C) No. 3934/2013 and which was dismissed
as withdrawn. Petitioner is in fact therefore estopped from filing the present
writ petition.
At this stage, it is stated by the parties that the appeal was filed
but without the requisite medical certificate and hence the same was
rejected.
9. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
