Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs N.Sathish on 26 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3826, 3827 and 5348 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.570 of 2020
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
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,
Chennai – 4. ... Appellants
Vs.
N.Sathish ... Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 30.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.6218 of 2019.
W.A.(MD)No.571 of 2020
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
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,
Chennai – 4. ... Appellants
Vs.
R.Babu ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 30.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.6219 of 2019.
W.A.(MD)No.991 of 2020
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
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,
Chennai – 4.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
(Technical Services),
Office of the Deputy Inspector General
of Police,
Chennai – 4.
6. The Additional Director General of Police,
State Crime Records Bureau,
Chennai – 4. ... Appellants
Vs.
K.Krishnaveni ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 23.10.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.19711 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar,
in all W.Ps. Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran
in all W.Ps. for Ajmal Associates
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
This issue involved in these Writ Appeals is with respect to the
disqualified persons on the ground that their vision without wearing specs is not
sufficient and after wearing it, they could perform their duties.
2. We have already settled the matter by dismissing the Writ Appeals
filed by the appellants in W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 953 of 2020, wherein, we held as
follows:
“7. We do not find any merit in these Writ Appeals, as
rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents that it is not a case, the respondents cannot function by
wearing glasses. The Notification does not specify the extent of visual
standards, even otherwise, it is clear, as the respondents can perform by
wearing glasses, their candidature cannot be rejected by making them
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
http://www.judis.nic.in glasses cannot be considered. One has to see the eligibility and
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
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 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 is sought to be undertaken as a
whole. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
9. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted that a direction may be issued to give
appointment orders, as the respondents are awaiting for quite sometime
despite having become qualified with their name in the provisional list.
10. We are inclined to agree with the said submission made.
Accordingly, the appellants are directed to give appointment orders to
the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgement.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
3. Following the above decision, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
26.02.2021
ogy
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ogy
W.A.(MD)Nos.570, 571 and 991 of 2020
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
