Facts of the case

The Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Limited herein after referred to as “FACT” published a notification for the post of Assistant General from candidates who have secured graduation with 50% marks and having sound knowledge in office automation systems/computer knowledge. The Petitioner was an applicant for the post at “FACT”. The Petitioner secured Rank 2 for the post of Assistant General.

Later a medical examination was conducted where the Petitioner was found unfit by the medical officer of the FACT. The Petitioner challenged this rejection. The Court vide its judgement dated 11/8/2021directed the FACT to examine the Petitioner by constituting a medical board within 2 weeks. In that order it was made clear that if the medical board so constituted finds the petitioner to be medically fit, the petitioner should be granted employment. The medical board was constituted in compliance with the Order of the Court, and it was found that the petitioner has Chronic Hepatitis B Infection and the said disease is a communicable disease through blood and body fluids.

Dissatisfied by the report of the medical board the Petitioner again preferred Writ Petition. The Petition was allowed, and the report of the Medical Board was set aside. The Court also directed the Petitioner to a further Medical examination by the medical board constituted by the Government hospital or Government medical college. The Medical examination conducted government institution found him medically unfit but also acknowledges that he could join work provided he adhered to universal safety precautions.

Contention of the Appellant

Adv. Arum Chandran, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Single Bench should not have dismissed the Writ Petition. It was also submitted that the learned Single Bench relied only on selective fragments of the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the rejection letter Ext. P27.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent, while issuing the rejection communication, failed to furnish a copy of the medical report which formed the basis of rescinding the offer letter. In the absence of this report, the Appellant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to appeal, as provided under the Pre-Employment Medical Procedure of the Respondent (FACT).

The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that in Ext. P23, this Court had issued clear directions to the Government of India to formulate specific protocols for individuals afflicted with Hepatitis B, akin to those already established for persons living with HIV. The intent behind such directions was to promote non-discriminatory practices and ensure equal treatment for individuals with Hepatitis B. It was submitted that the essence of the Ext. P23 judgement was to facilitate the absorption of similarly places individuals into the services of the Central government, State government and Public sector undertakings. However, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition, failed to take this crucial aspect into consideration.

Adv. Arun Chandran further submitted that the Respondent’s Order, marked at Ext.P27, rejecting the Appellant’s offer of employment, is in violation of the Right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was contended that Ext. P27 deserves to be quashed. He also placed reliance on MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitant V. M/s ZY and Others reported in [AIR 1997 BOM. 406]

It was further contended that the Appellant had been certified as medically fit despite being diagnosed with Hepatitis B. The Medical Board reports merely indicated the presence of the virus in the Appellant’s bloodstream at the time of examination, without suggesting any unfitness for employment.

Contention of the Respondent

Adv. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar Counsel for the Respondent supported the judgement of the learned Single Bench and expressed his view that the impugned Order is sustainable.

Court’s observation

The impugned Judgment under challenge was delivered by a Single Judge, who held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot override the expert committee’s assessment, which had declared the individual medically unfit.

The Division Bench carefully reviewed the medical records, and the judgment marked as Ext. P 23. It found no evidence in the medical record to suggest that the Appellant was unfit for the job. The Court observed that FACT had failed to properly consider these medical findings before rejecting the Appellant’s application.

The Court also observed that that such denial of employment was ordered ignoring the findings of the medical board, of general hospital, wherein, it was categorically stated that the appellant could take up all activities including job.

Court held that

“Denial of public employment to a candidate/aspirant solely on the ground that the person was inflicted with hepatitis B virus or such infection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

That denial of employment to the appellant, job aspirant solely on the reason that, once he was inflicted with Hepatitis B virus is illegal unfair and unjustifiable.

As a result, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Bench was set aside. The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to issue appointment letter to the appellant as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month.

Credits: Adv. Siddhi Sawant