Dr. Rahul Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6908 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          W.P.(C) No.7804/2015

%                                                          10th November, 2016

Dr. RAHUL KUMAR                                                   ..... Petitioner

                           Through:      Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate.

                           versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                        ..... Respondents

                           Through:      Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Sahaj Garg,
                                         Advocates for R-1 & 3.

                                         Mr. V.N.        Koura,   Advocate      for
                                         IOCL/R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India by the petitioner/Dr. Rahul Kumar seeking directions from this

Court against respondent no. 2/Indian Oil Corporation Limited to appoint

the petitioner to the post of Quality Control Officer.

2. It is undisputed that pursuant to the advertisement No. RD-

2014 (1) of respondent no. 2, the petitioner was successful in the written test

and in the interview, and was given the offer of employment in terms of the

Letter of respondent no. 2 dated 17.12.2014. Before the grant of actual

employment, however as per the guidelines applicable and forming part of

the advertisement, every candidate has to undergo a fitness/medical test and

has to clear the medical test as per the standards laid down in the Guidelines

and Criteria for Physical Fitness for Pre-Employment Medical Examination.

In the medical test so conducted of the petitioner the doctor of the

respondent no. 2, declared the petitioner to be medically fit by issuing a

Certificate dated 6.1.2015, but, when the petitioner went to join the

department the concerned medical officer as per his note dated 12.1.2015

reported that the petitioner was medically unfit on account of vision of the

left eye being 6/36. Petitioner, therefore, was again directed to undergo

medical examination by respondent no. 2 and in this Medical Examination

Report dated 27.3.2015 the petitioner was found to be medically unfit

because his distant vision in his left eye was found to be 6/18 (P) whereas

the standard requirement is that the vision in any one of the eyes cannot be

worse than 6/12. Petitioner was therefore held disentitled to employment as

Quality Control Officer.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that the

petitioner is a very efficient person and that the petitioner has completed his

PhD Degree from IIT Roorkee in Environmental Analytical Chemistry and

has worked under a Ministry of Government of India as a Project Assistant-

IV in the project titled as "Capacity Enhancement Program on Flyash

Utilization", and therefore the petitioner should be granted employment by

respondent no. 2. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the

Guidelines and Criteria for Physical Fitness attached with the advertisement

and filed as Annexure P-10 to the writ petition would not apply to engineers

and officers as per Clause 2.2 of the said guidelines and criteria and

therefore respondent no. 2 was unjustified in denying employment to the

petitioner.

4. It is undisputed before this court that so far as the left eye

distant vision of the petitioner is concerned the same does not meet the

standards because the maximum permissible limit of 6/12 whereas the

petitioner has an inferior vision of 6/18 (P). This Court cannot substitute its

own standards and criteria which are fixed by respondent no. 2 because it is

in the absolute discretion of a proposed employer to fix standards of medical

fitness for its employees. Once the requirements are uniformly applied

without discrimination to every appointment, the fixed standards cannot be

substituted by this Court on the grounds of equity or otherwise. The

petitioner therefore clearly would not be entitled to employment on account

of defective distant vision in the left eye.

5. The argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that Clause 2.2

of the guidelines does not apply to engineers and officers, and hence cannot

apply for the post of Quality Control Officer, may seem to be liberally

found in Clause 2.2, but, it cannot be that no medical standards at all would

apply when appointment is of an engineer or officer with the respondent no.

2. Clause 2.2 must have been put in at a particular stage in the guidelines

and criteria and thereafter not amended or deleted or explained, however, in

the advertisement it was specifically mentioned that all the appointments to

the posts under the advertisement, including the post to which petitioner

applied, would have to satisfy the prescribed medical criteria/fitness.

Therefore, Clause 2.2 cannot be read liberally because if Clause 2.2 is read

literally and liberally it would mean that there are no medical standards at

all to be complied with by a person who seeks to join as an engineer or

officer with respondent no. 2 because this would create an absurdity, and

which has to be avoided.

6. In view of the above discussion since the petitioner does not

meet the medical standard of the respondent no. 2 with respect to distant

vision in his left eye, the respondent no. 2 was justified in terms of its Letter

dated 22.4.2015 in denying employment to the petitioner by observing that

petitioner was not fit for the job being medically unfit on account of having

Hypermetropic Amblyopic in his left eye.

7. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

NOVEMBER 10, 2016                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK