Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Durga Devi on 19 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
4.The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Services),
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Chennai – 4. :Appellants
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
Vs.
S.Durga devi : Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11868/2019 dated 08.05.2019.
For Appellants :Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The issue involved in this writ appeal lies in a narrow compass
viz., is a person, who could only perform a regular function by wearing
glasses would become disentitle to a post he can otherwise perform, by
making an assessment qua the eyesight without wearing glasses?
2.The respondent before us went through the process of
recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Finger print). She
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
has, accordingly, cleared the written examination followed by physical
measurement endurance test and viva voce. She was found non-suited
pursuant to the examination done by the Medical Board consists of one
Eye Specialist, after having been selected provisionally.
3.The test was conducted in tune with the Government Order
passed in G.O.Ms.No.1221, Home (Police.9) Department, dated
10.11.2000, by fixing the visual standards upon testing a candidate
without wearing glasses. After making the respondent going through the
rigor thrice, she was found non-suitable and her candidature was
rejected.
4.The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition inter alia
holding that the notification does not specify the visual standards. It is
not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. What the
respondent lacks is only an inadequate and insufficient power in the eyes.
5.Laying a challenge to the aforesaid order passed, the learned
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants merely relied
upon the Government Order passed. The appellants, being the employer
of the respondent, cannot question the methodology adopted. In the
absence of arbitrariness or mala fides involved in the views expressed by
the Medical Board, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed
the Writ Petition.
6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
reiterated the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. It is
submitted that it is not even the case of the appellants that the respondent
cannot undertake the job by wearing glasses. The insufficient power is
only a deficiency in the eyes. If the said contention is accepted, any
candidate wearing specs would get excluded automatically. The
Government Order relied upon itself is contrary to law and the idea is to
create an equal platform for everybody. A residual restriction or barrier,
when it does not affect the performance of the candidate will never stand
a scrutiny of law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
7.We do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal. As rightly
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
that it is not a case of the appellants that the respondent cannot function
by wearing glasses. The Notification does not specify the extent of
visual standards, even otherwise, it is clear, as the respondent can
perform by wearing glasses, her candidature cannot be rejected by
making her to undergo a test without wearing glasses. The question is the
suitability to the job and not otherwise. The classification sought to be
made is certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If it
is approved, a candidate, who is wearing specs, would become disentitled
for being considered to the post. It is an indirect way of fixing
qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot
be considered. One has to see the eligibility and suitability of the
candidate to the post, but such eligibility cannot be fixed on the basis of a
candidate without specs, vis-a-vis, a candidate with specs. Thus, looking
from any perspective, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, as we are in respectful
agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
appearing for the respondents that the Government Order relied upon is
outdated, opaque and contrary to the wisdoms expressed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. It is the insufficient/inadequate eyesight that makes a person
to wear a glass. Once such glass is worn, then, that deficiency goes.
Therefore, such person becomes eligible on par with the other person,
who performs without glasses.
8.In such view of the matter, the classification sought to be made
has got no rationale, as the job sought to be undertaken can be done
wearing specs. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
9.At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that a direction may be issued to give appointment
order, as the respondent is awaiting for quite sometime, despite having
become qualified with her name in the provisional list.
10.We are inclined to agree with the said submission made.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
Accordingly, the appellants are directed to give appointment order to the
respondent within of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
[M.M.S., J.] & [S.A.I, J.]
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
4.The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Services),
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Chennai – 4.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J
AND
S.ANANTHI, J
RR
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2020
19.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
