Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7804/2015
th
% 10 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
W.P.(C) No.7804/2016 Page 1 of 5
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
W.P.(C) No.7804/2016 Page 2 of 5
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
W.P.(C) No.7804/2016 Page 3 of 5
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
W.P.(C) No.7804/2016 Page 4 of 5
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
W.P.(C) No.7804/2016 Page 5 of 5