Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kuwar Pal Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 12 February, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi T.A.No.52/2012 Order Reserved on: 10.09.2013 Order pronounced on 12.02.2014 Honble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) 1. Kuwar Pal Singh, S/o Dungar Singh, F-3, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110 091. 2. Tuli Ram, S/o Desh Raj, 12/561, Mandoli Extension, Delhi-110093. 3. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Mohinder Singh, H.No.D/1316, Jhangir Puri, Delhi-110033. 4. Mohan Lal Jatav, S/o Shanker Lal Jatav, A-75, Khanpur, J.J. Colony, New Delhi-62. 5. Surjit Singh, S/o Gurbachan Singh, Vill-Sonti, P.O. Ladwa, Distt.-Karukshetra, Haryana-136132. 6. Ravinder Kumar, S/o Jai Singh, VPO:Mehrana, Jhajjar, Haryana. 7. Hari Kishan, S/o Kartar Singh, V.P.O. Assan, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. 8. Madan Singh, S/o Chet Ram, H.No.B-130, Mata Wali Gali, Johripur, Delhi-110094. 9. Amarjeet Sini, B-18, Lahiri Colony, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. 10. Devender Kumar, S/o Suraj Mal, H.No.10-B, Village Gokal Puri, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-94. 11. Jitendra Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Pal, Village & PO-Garhi, Kandanjri, Tehsil-Khekhra, Dist. Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh. 12. Veer Pal Singh, S/o Ram Niwas, Village-Hewa, Tehsil:Baraut, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. 13. Ashok Kumar, S/o Jag Prasad, Regd. Office, CSA Univ. of Agri & Tech. Nawabganj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. .. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri L.K. Singh) Versus 1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi. 3. State Transport Authority, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Secretary, Transport Department, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054. .. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) O R D E R Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
This TA had earlier been filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as Writ Petition (C) No.7010/2012. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, passed an order dated 06.11.2012, and transferred the said Writ Petition to this Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground of jurisdiction. This case was listed before a single member Bench on 15.11.2012. The said Bench, that day, took notice of the fact that 13 applicants of this TA are out of 412 similarly placed persons mentioned in the impugned Order/Notification/Memorandum, Annexure P/1 dated 18.10.2012, passed on the basis of a Resolution dated 12.04.2012, adopted by the Delhi Transport Corporation Board (DTC Board, in short), whereby it was decided that all those candidates who were selected through the Delhi State Subordinate Services Board (DSSSB, in short), and who were initially declared medically `unfit' by the DTC Medical Board, but were subsequently found `fit' by the Guru Nanak Eye Centre (GNEC, in short), and were thereafter working as DTC Drivers, have to be got re-examined by an independent Medical Board.
2. The respondents had, by the impugned order, directed all the 412 aforesaid Drivers, including the applicants, to report for the independent Medical Board for re-examination, which was to be conducted at I.P.Depot Dispensary, New Delhi, on the dates indicated against their names. The impugned order further stated that these Drivers were to be given further duties only on producing the Slip with regard to their having attended the medical examination, and having been cleared by the Chief Medical Officer of the DTC Medical Board.
3. The said Bench had, further, noted that the applicants have challenged the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that they have already been medically examined by a competent Medical Board, which found them `fit', and only thereafter they have been appointed as Drivers, and the new Medical Board, now constituted, does not have any expert in Opthalmology. Therefore, subjecting them for any further examination is not only unnecessary, but also arbitrary, and the applicants had sought to set aside the said impugned order.
4. It was also pointed out before the said Bench that, when some of the applicants had gone for the medical examination on the appointed date given to them, no such medical examination was conducted, and that they had been asked to go on further re-scheduled dates fixed in November and December, 2012. The said Bench had noted that when it is the respondents own case that petitioners were engaged as Drivers only after they had been declared medically `fit' by an expert Medical Board of the GNEC, the necessity of having another test is something which has to be examined in detail, after receiving the reply of the respondents, and prima-facie view of the said Bench was that the respondent-Corporation cannot deny work to the applicants during the pendency of the TA, and, therefore, it was ordered by the said Bench that the applicants shall not be visited by any adverse consequences on account of the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, during the pendency of the Writ Petition/TA, and that they shall not be denied work till further orders by this Tribunal.
5. Since the respondents did not assign them Buses for driving, these 13 applicants had filed Contempt Petition No.347/2013, which came to be disposed of on 08.08.2013, after noting that since the respondents are continuously paying the salaries of the applicants concerned, they cannot perhaps be given the vehicles to be driven by these persons till the issue of their colour blindness is decided. It was noted that since the order of the Tribunal was that the applicants shall not be visited by any adverse consequences, as long as they are getting salaries, even without doing any work, they cannot plead that they have been visited with any adverse circumstances. In view of this, this very Bench found that there is no contumacious act on the part of the respondents, and, therefore, the Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued were discharged.
6. After a number of adjournments were sought from both the sides, the case came to be finally heard and reserved for orders on 10.09.2013.
7. It is seen that in the year 2007, in view of the impending Common Wealth Games requirements, the DTC had felt the need for recruitment of a large number of Drivers. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation, had, through DSSSB, issued an Advertisement No.10 of 2007, inviting applications of eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Driver (Post Code No.187/07) in DTC, and the number of posts were around 10,000, and as the applicants along with others found themselves fully eligible for the said post, and met the prescribed criteria, they filled up the application forms as prescribed, along with the stipulated application fees, and upon being found eligible, and meeting the prescribed criteria of having appropriate vision, and holding a valid driving licence, sanctioned by an appropriate authority, they were issued a Roll number for appearing at the Written Test, to be conducted by the DSSSB. The applicants qualified/cleared the Written Test, and were subsequently called for skill test (driving), which was conducted on different dates from 09.06.2008 onwards, and successfully cleared by the applicants before us.
8. Based upon the Written Test, and the driving skill test so held, the recommendations were prepared by the DSSSB, and were sent to the DTC for their appointment as Drivers. They were also called for a medical test to be held at the DTC Headquarters, at I.P. Estate. The Medical Tests were conducted and the qualifying candidates underwent a medical test to assess/ascertain their medical fitness as per Rules. These Medical Tests included the testing of the Eye sight (vision) of the candidates. However, it so happened that the Medical Board constituted at the aforesaid I.P.Depot by Respondent No.1, did not have any eye specialist. Still, as per the result of the above stated medical tests, the applicants before us, including some other successful candidates included in the impugned Notification, were declared unsuccessful in the medical tests on account of their having been found to be Red-Green Colour Blind.
9. The applicants have submitted that none of the applicants suffers from any Eye disease, and were totally medically `fit', and, thereby, the reasons for rejection were non-existent, and the medical report was faulty. They have further assailed the medical report as it was not made by a professional Eye Specialist/Opthalmologist. However, the Respondent No.1, acting through its Manager (Personnel), issued letters to the applicants to get themselves medically examined once again, and to report to their office within three days for the purpose of such Medical re-examination. Thereafter, the applicants appeared before the designated Government Hospital, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi-2, for the purpose of the re-examination of their Eyes, where they were found to be `fit, and the results were accordingly declared, and communicated to Respondent No.1. In view of this medical opinion of the GNEC, the applicants and others similarly placed were issued the letters of appointment, and appointed as Drivers in the DTC in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs.2000, and other allowances as admissible thereupon.
10. The applicants were made to undergo training of four weeks, and they were put on probation for a period of two years, and could be confirmed in their appointments, only on satisfactory completion of the period of their probation, and issuance of a notification to that effect by the competent authority, as per the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter called as, DRTA Regulations of 1952).
11. Over the next two years, the applicants completed the period of their probation also, as provided in their letters of appointment, and the applicants have claimed to have had a clean record, and not even a single case of challan/punishments or any other nature, were issued against the applicants, and, therefore, all the applicants were issued a letter of confirmation of their services with the DTC.
12. However, all of a sudden, through the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, the Manager (Personnel), acting on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, notified a list of some of the DSSSB selected Drivers, directing them to report for medical re-examination at the Medical Board in the I.P. Depot Dispensary at the Headquarters. A total of 412 candidates were so directed to report for re-medical examination, on different dates, as indicated in front of their names from 26.10.2012 to 26.12.2012.
13. It was mentioned in the beginning paragraph of the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 that the Notification was issued, in pursuance of the Resolution No.25 of 2012, dated 12.04.2012, of the respondent-Corporation. The applicants have assailed the actions of the respondents in not having informed them about the contents of this Resolution of the DTC Board, purportedly relied upon, while issuing the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, Annexure P/1. They have assailed the actions of Respondent No1 as having been taken mechanically, and without any application of mind. They have further submitted that this Notification was unwarranted, discriminatory, illegal, and smacks of ulterior motives, and that the Notification has been issued by the respondent-Corporation being driven by malice and malafide, through which grave injustice has been caused to the applicants. They had prayed for the impugned Notification dated 18.10.2012 to be declared as bad in law, and liable to be set aside.
14. The applicants have further submitted that after their confirmation in service, they have been brought at par with all other permanent Drivers with the respondent-Corporation, in terms of the pay scales and other benefits also, and that they have also been given two increments after their confirmation. They had, therefore, submitted that when around 8000 Drivers were so recruited in response to the Advertisement No.10 of 2007, and the total number of Drivers in the DTC now comes to around 20000, there could not be a separate criteria applied to the candidates selected against the 2007 Advertisement. They have also submitted that the impugned Notification being the nature of singling out the Drivers herein, in the said list of 412, out of the total number of 20000 with the Respondent-Corporation, amounted to an illegal order for re-Medical examination, being bad in law, and de hors the statutory provisions, and, therefore, unsustainable. They had submitted that once they had already undergone medical examination, and had been selected only on being declared fit, the requirement of any re-medical examination does not arise, and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
15. It was submitted that the impugned Notification suffers from numerous legal infirmities, and deserves to be quashed on the ground that it has unreasonably picked up 412 Drivers, amongst all the Drivers so recruited, to undergo medical re-examination, without any rhyme and reason. They have taken the further ground that the respondents have failed to consider and appreciate that the applicants had qualified the medical fitness tests, and had been declared fit by the Medical Board of the respondents-Corporation, when they were sent to the specialized Hospital, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, and, therefore, no cause of action had arisen for their re-Medical examination under the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952.
16. They have further submitted that none of the applicants were, at any time during their probation period, either challaned and/or were engaged or involved in any accident, and, therefore, the impugned Notification is arbitrary and discriminatory. They had also submitted that after their confirmation against the posts of Drivers, they had become part of the one class of 20000 Drivers engaged by the respondent-Corporation, and all of them deserve to be equally treated, at par with the other Drivers, and that the respondents could not be allowed to single out the applicants, and act to their detriment, because such singling out is violative of Constitutional Scheme, and lacks intelligible differentia, and that there has been no significant change of circumstances, and thereby no action to warrant a re-Medical examination, to re-ascertain medical fitness of the applicants was required, particularly after the grant of letters of confirmation to them. It was further submitted that the impugned order/notification list has been prepared without any report or disciplinary action or inquiry, and over looking their clean and unblemished record, and is, therefore, unreasonable, and without any basis. It was further submitted that the impugned Notification is driven by malice and mala fide, so as to jeopardize the career of the applicants, and motivated solely to remove the applicants from their employment, and that the impugned Notification has failed to consider that after the applicants having crossed the period of probation, and having been confirmed in the said post, they deserve to be treated at par with other Drivers of the respondent-Corporation.
17. It was further submitted that the respondents have also decided not to give further duties to these Drivers, without their attending the re-Medical examination, and that such an order is null and void in the eyes of law, as it has been passed without giving the applicants an opportunity of being heard. In the result, they had prayed that the impugned Notification dated 18.10.2012 deserves to be set aside, and the respondents should be restrained from initiating and/or executing any other coercive action against the applicants, in pursuance of the impugned Notification, and that this Tribunal may pass such further other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper, in favour of the applicants, and against the respondents.
18. The counter reply was filed by the respondent-Corporation on 22.01.2013, more or less outlining the same sequence of events as narrated by the applicants in their Writ Petition/Transfer Application. They had relied upon the Office Order No.52 dated 30.09.2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary (CC-I) Branch of DSSSB, in which it has been envisaged that the appointments of these candidates would be subject to the fulfillment of all the conditions of eligibility as per the Recruitment Rules, and also action was required to be undergone to inquire into the character and antecedents of the candidates, and to get them medically examined, and to verify their original documents and certificates, as required for the post, as laid down in the Recruitment Rules concerned. It was further mentioned by the respondents that in case of any discrepancy/shortcoming in the Driving Licence or any other matter relating to eligibility, etc. of the candidates, the DSSSB and respondent-Corporation have the right to cancel the selection of the candidates at any stage.
19. It was pointed out that the DTC Medical Board had declared a number of candidates medically `unfit due to Red-Green Colour Blindness, defective Eye vision, or other deformities. Such candidates had represented by way of submitting fitness certificates obtained from other Government Hospitals. After considering such representations, a decision was taken by the DTC Board, vide Resolution No.90/2009 dated 22.12.2009, to take up the matter regarding testing of vision with the Guru Nanak Eye Centre/Hospital, in respect of the DSSSB selected candidates only, who were declared medically `unfit by the DTC Board, as per the medical standard of the Corporation, for a medical test of their occupational fitness, through an independent Medical Board of the GNEC. They accepted that such of those candidates, who were later found medically fit by the Guru Nanak Eye Centre, were given appointment to the post of Drivers.
20. It was pointed out that thereafter one Driver Shri Vinod Kumar, Badge No.24243 of V.V.Depot., who had been initially found medically unfit by the DTC Medical Board, and was later on found `fit by the GNEC, caused an accident. He was thereafter re-examined by the DTC Medical Board, and as a result of his re-medical examination, the DTC Medical Board found him `unfit for the post of Driver due to defective vision, being Red-Green Colour Blind, and accordingly his services were terminated by the Depot authorities. Simultaneously, the Chief Medical Officer, In-charge of DTC Medical Board, who had re-examined the said Driver, Shri Vinod Kumar, on 28.04.2011, suggested vide his note dated 23.05.2011, that such of those Drivers, who had been declared `fit by the GNEC, after their having been declared `unfit by the DTC Medical Board, may be directed for their re-medical examination, in order to avoid any accidents in future. This recommendation was placed before the DTC Board, which, vide Resolution No.25/2012 dated 12.4.2012, decided to get all such Drivers re-examined by an independent Medical Board, for considering the number of defective vision cases.
21. It was submitted that the Principal Secretary, Health, Department of Health and Family Welfare of Government of NCTD, had thereafter constituted an Independent Medical Board, vide orders dated 26.09.2012, enclosed as Annexure R/1, which were issued by the Superintendent H (II) of Health and Family Welfare Department, GNCTD. This order, at Annexure R/1, stated as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT 9TH LEVEL, A-WING, DELHI SECTT., IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI No. F.25/88/X/MB-DTC/H&FW/5062-70 Dated : 26/09/2012 ORDER Reference request received from Chairman-cum-MD, DTC vide letter No.PLD-III/(Driver)/DSSSB/2012/1745 dated 01.06.2012 regarding nomination of two Doctors to be a part of Medical Board alongwith one DTC Doctor for conducting re-medical examination of DSSSB selected drivers.
The Competent Authority after due consideration of request, orders for constitution of Medical Board consisting of the following doctors for Re/Medical examination of DSSSB selected drivers.
Dr. Anil Kumar Moghe, CMO (SAG), Central Distt., DHS (Member).
Dr. Gia Chaudhary, Associate Professor, GNEC (Member) for first seven days.
Dr. Punita Sodhi, Associate Professor, GNEC (Member) for next seven days.
Dr. Subhash Dahiya, Professor, GNEC (Member) till the Medical Examination come to end.
3. Third Member of the Medical Examination Board will be nominated by the CMO, DTC.
This issues with prior approval of Pr. Secretary (H&FW).
(ASHOK KUMAR) SUPERINTENDENT (H-II)
22. Accordingly, instructions were issued to all concerned Unit offices for directing the concerned Drivers to report to this independent Medical Board, constituted for the purpose, on different dates, through the impugned Order/Notification. It was submitted that this medical re-examination could not be started on the assigned date due to some administrative reasons, and since then, revised instructions have been issued by the GNCTD, through their letter dated 01.11.2012, stating that further re-examination of the selected candidates should also be held at GNEC, the contents of which stated as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 9TH LEVEL, A-WING, DELHI SECTT., IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI No. F.25/88/X/MB-DTC/H&FW/6189-93 Dated : 01/11/2012 ORDER Reference to this office order No. F.25/88/X/MB-DTC/H&FW/5062-70 dated 26.09.2012 vide which medical board constituted for conducting re-medical examination of DSSSB selected drivers.
In this regard, many representations were received from doctors of Guru Nanak Eye Hospital who are appointed as a member of medical board and requested candidate be referred to Guru Nanak Eye Centre for re-medical examination as they required special investigation and facilities/equipment for such investigation/examination which are available in this Centre. The representations were considered in the Deptt. and that the matter was also discussed with the DTC Authorities.
It has been, therefore, decided that further re-medical examination of DSSSB selected driver be held at Guru Nanak Eye Hospital.
This issues with prior approval of the Competent Authority.
(ASHOK KUMAR) SUPERINTENDENT (H-II)
23. It was submitted that the impugned Order/Notification has been issued based on the DTC Boards Resolution No.25/2012 date 12.04.2012, which had directed the 412 DSSSB recruited Drivers who had been initially found unfit, for their re-medical examination by an Independent Medical Board consisting of Eye specialist from GNEC and DTC Doctors.
24. An MA No.1783/2013 was filed by 3 more applicants, seeking to be impleaded as applicants in the array of parties in the said TA, but on 12.07.2013, the learned counsel for the Miscellaneous Applicants sought permission to withdraw their MA, with permission to file a separate substantive OA, which prayer was allowed, and that MA was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
25. The applicants filed their rejoinder on 02.05.2013, more or less reiterating their contentions as raised in the TA. They had contested the case of Shri Vinod Kumar, and stated that no accident had been caused by Shri Vinod Kumar, nor has DTC furnished any proof of any action taken report, in respect of the action taken upon him by the DTC Medical Board, which was required to be placed on record in the present case. They had also contested that the accident case of the said person, Shri Vinod Kumar, could be used by the Chief Medical Officer of DTC to make a suggestion vide Note dated 23.05.2011 for medical re-examination of all the concerned 412 persons, including the 13 applicants before us. They submitted that the DTC authorities themselves were not even equipped in the first place to carry out any re-Medical examination, or eye vision test, of the Drivers. They had reiterated their contention that they were properly recruited, and had completed their two years period of probation satisfactorily, and had been issued letters of confirmation, and, therefore, no issue could be raised in respect of any discrepancy or shortcoming in regard to their eligibility for employment with the respondent-Corporation. They had submitted that in view of this, the impugned Notification is bad and arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside, as being violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
26. The applicants had reiterated that once they have been confirmed, and had attained parity with the other Drivers working with the respondent-Corporation, they also deserve to be treated equally, and no pick and choose policy should be applied to the applicants, as has been sought to be done, through the impugned order. They had, therefore, reiterated that the TAdeserves to be allowed.
27. The respondents filed an additional affidavit, dated 26.07.2013, through the Chief General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent-Corporation swearing that affidavit. He had pointed out that large number of Drivers/candidates nominated by DSSSB, were found `unfit on account of colour blindness, or on account of Defective Distinct Vision (DDV, in short) or Defective Near Vision (DNV, in short), but later on when they got themselves again re-examined in the GNEC, they had been declared `fit, because of which, they were appointed as Drivers in the DTC. It was submitted that when one of these Drivers, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar, met with an accident, and it was found that he was one of those who had been initially declared medically unfit by the Medical Board of DTC, since there was much hue and cry, and a public interest litigation was filed in the Honble High Court in regard to that accident, a decision was taken by the respondent-Corporation to medically re-examine the whole batch of the Drivers recruited in 2008.
28. After consideration of the case, the Board of the respondent-Corporation passed a Resolution No.25/2012 dated 12.04.2012, to get all such Drivers, who were first declared medically `unfit, and later declared `fit by the GNEC, to be sent for re-medical examination by an independent Medical Board, which was constituted through the impugned Circular issued vide order dated 18.10.2012. It was submitted that 159 Drivers (9 Drivers were terminated, or expired), who were declared medically `fit by the GNEC after they were declared as `unfit by the DTC Medical Board, have since been re-examined by the independent Medical Board of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital. In the first instance, 99 Drivers, who were declared medically `unfit by the DTC Medical Board due to colour blindness, were asked to appear before the independent Medical Board at the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, out of which 91 were again declared `unfit due to colour blindness, 3 did not turn up, and 1 was declared `fit, and 4 cases are still subject to decision of the competent authority, due to a difference of opinion amongst members of the Medical Board.
29. It was mentioned in the affidavit that since the deformity of colour blindness was hereditary, and cannot be claimed to have developed after their being assigned the duties in the DTC, therefore, it could be concluded that such people had got appointment as Drivers in the DTC, by deceitful means. It was further submitted that in another batch of 51 Drivers, who were declared medically `unfit by the DTC Medical Board, due to DDV and DNV, but were not falling within the colour blindness category, 43 have since been declared `fit by the said independent Medical Board, 1 did not turn up, 6 were declared `unfit, and 1 case was subject to the decision of the competent authority due to difference of opinion between the members of the Medical Board. Further, the 3 Drivers in Colour-Blindness category, who did not appear before the Medical Board, have now been allowed to appear before the independent Medical Board on 01.08.2013. It was submitted that the remaining other 257 persons have also been fixed for re-Medical examination at Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital w.e.f. 01.08.2013. It was further pointed out, specifically, about the 13 applicants of this TA, that 8 have been medically re-examined and have been found `unfit due to colour blindness, but because of the ex-parte stay ordered by this Tribunal, no action has yet been taken as against them. It was further submitted that any adverse action, if any, against any individuals, who are found medically `unfit, would be taken only after following the due process of law, and after issuing them a show cause notice to that effect.
30. In so far as the applicants being allowed to drive DTC buses, it was submitted in the additional affidavit that it is for the DTC to see that the buses should be given in the hands of those Drivers, who are medically `fit, and it is not only the access to the costly buses, which have to be given to them, but it is also the lives of the thousands of the commuters, who are travelling in those buses, which are in their hands. It was submitted that only because of their having been found `unfit in the re-medical examination, the concerned applicants have moved this Tribunal by way of Contempt Petition, in order to forestall their dismissal from the DTC. In view of this, it was prayed that the TA is devoid of any merit, and the same deserves to be dismissed, and the ex-parte stay, granted by this Tribunal dated 15.11.2012, deserves to be vacated.
31. The applicants chose to file a reply to the aforesaid Additional Affidavit on 26.08.2013. Once again, they reiterated their contentions as made out in the TA, as well as in the earlier rejoinder. They had assailed the actions of the respondents in not allowing the applicants to drive buses, and have stated that by doing this, the respondents had violated, and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Tribunal. They had again assailed the case of the said Driver, Sh. Vinod Kumar, being used by the respondents for subjecting the applicants and others similarly placed, through a process of re-medical examination, by assuming that the accident mentioned was because of that Drivers eye sight problem. They had submitted that the respondents would have been right, if they had subjected and decided to medically re-examine all the Drivers recruited in the year 2008, but, instead of doing so, they have taken a decision to send only those Drivers for medical re-examination, who had been appointed pursuant to the second medical re-examination at the GNEC, which amounts to a pick and choose policy, and discriminatory in character, even though, no accident had taken place in the case of such people, who have already undergone medical reexamination. It was also submitted that the respondents have not brought on record the medical examination reports of those 8 applicants, whom they have alleged to have found medically `unfit, as they have a right to know their respective medical results. They had further alleged that there is a total violation of principles of natural justice, and the applicants have not been allowed to ply the busses on the roads, and they have been subjected to illegal actions against them, and that the respondents have their own axe to grind against the Drivers, who were appointed after re-medical examination at the GNEC. They had, therefore, assailed the actions of the respondents as being high handedness on their part, and legally unsustainable, and had prayed for the TA be allowed.
32. Heard the case in detail, and we have also given our anxious considerations to the facts of this case. First of all, there is merit in the submission of the Chief General Manager, DTC, in the Additional Affidavit filed by the respondents on 26.07.2013 that the Buses of the respondent-Corporation can only be given in the hands of those Drivers, who are totally medically `fit, because it is not only the expensive buses, which are being given to them for Driving, but also the lives of thousands of commuters, who are travelling in these buses, are in their hands. It is the duty of this Tribunal also to keep the safety of the travelling public uppermost in our minds, in the interest of the public at large.
33. Second aspect of the case is that anybody, who is having defective vision, either a defective colour vision, normally reflected in the form of Red Green Colour Blindness, or DDV or DNV, cannot be counted to be fully capable of safely driving the buses of the respondent-Corporation, and into whose hands lives of thousands of commuters can be entrusted by the respondent-Corporation.
34. Apart from the eye defectiveness, the other physical aspects/defects of bodily deformity, if any, developed during the course of the employment, also require to be checked up periodically. A Circular No.PLD-V (Medical Std.)/86/6614, issued on 02.07.1986, by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, DTC, already prescribes the procedure in this regard.
35. The Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM), 2000 clearly recognizes that an individual, having a normal colour perception, retains such normalcy through out his live, unless he develops any pathological conditions related to the optic nerve. The Railway Boards letter dated 11.05.1987, therefore, prescribes that wherever, a person tested earlier and found to be having normal colour vision, is found to be colour blind subsequently, without having developed one of they pathological conditions of the optic nerve, and where there is also no doubt as to the findings of earlier colour vision examination, the person concerned should be declared as a `Malingerer.
36. The word Malinger has been defined in Section 46 (B) of the Army Act of 1950 to mean to pretend illness or to produce or protract disease, in order to escape duty (especially of soldiers and sailors). The P. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon (3rd Edition 2012) defines `Malingering as a deception practised by anybody from which they try to make out that they are sick, when they are not sick.
37. Colour blindness is a genetically inherited disease, unless some other evident cause can be found objectively, because of which a person may have lost total sensitivity to colour vision. The Red Green Colour Blindness is what is inherited by a person from his Maternal Grand Father, through his Mother being the carrier, and a person passes those defective Genes in regard to the Red Green Colour Blindness, to his Maternal Grandson. The daughters of a Red-Green Colour Blind individual are only carriers of the defective Gene, and the Red-Green Colour Blindness does not normally manifest itself in them, since they are only carriers of the defective genes.
38. The retina of eyes of a human being consists of two types of cells, designed to detect light, colour and motion, namely, Rods and Cones. Rods are those cells which detect intensity of light falling on the retina of the eye, and are very sensitive to detect motion, and also even a slightest decrease or increase in the intensity of light reaching the retina of the eye of the human being is detected by Rods. Cones, on the other hand, are special cells designed mainly only to detect colours, and not the intensity of light alone. At the white spot, where the visual acuity of the eyes is the maximum, Rods are less in number and Cones are preponderant in number. While, on the other hand, at the periphery of the retina of the eye, hardly any Cones are present, and the periphery of the retina of the eyes mainly consists of Rods, because of which the eye is able to detect motion in front, from left to right, or right to left, and from very far to nearer, depending upon the intensity of light reaching the Rods at the periphery of the retina.
39. The Red-Green Colour Blindness is a hereditary form of disease, which does not affect the Rods at all, and only affects the Cones in the Eyes of a person. It is a disease which is passed on through Daughter as the carrier Mother, and is the result of a particular defective Gene, which renders Cones to be less capable of distinguishing between Red and Green Colours, and the capacity to identify Red and Green Colours being either totally absent, or deficient, in the Cones of the eyes of a person. This disease is inherited by an individual from his Maternal Grandfather through his Mother, and in which the Mother is only the carrier, while the disease is then later reflected only in the Maternal Grandsons. The inheritance of Red Green Colour Blindness passes from Maternal Grandfather only, and does not pass from Paternal Grandfather to Paternal Grandson.
40. The Red-Green Colour Blindness being a genetic disease, it is incurable, and this Red-Green Colour Blindness disease cannot also be acquired by anybody by any other process whatsoever. That does not mean that the Cones in the retina of a person cannot be affected adversely by any other means. There are some acute medical conditions and circumstances, and other medical reasons, related to the damage of the optic nerve, because of which the Cones in the retina of the Eyes of a normal person can stop seeing and communicating the sensation of colour thereafter, due to the infection of or damage to the Cones, but in such a situation, the Cones lose there ability to see colour altogether, and not only the ability to the extent of lack of distinguishing between the Red and Green Colours, which is called Red Green Colour Blindness. Therefore, in the case of any acquired colour vision defect, the deficiency is mostly a White-Black colour deficiency, or While-Black Colour Blindness, and it can never be the Red Green Colour Blindness.
41. Medical Research and Science has so far not been able to find any manner in which either the genetic hereditary defect of Red Green Colour Blindness, inherited from the Maternal Grandfather through the mother, can either be cured, or an equal effect of illness or deficiency can be induced in any manner whatsoever, which may affect all of the Cones in the retina in the eye of a person.
42. We can, for a proper discussion about the Colour Blindness, borrow from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, available on the internet, which has discussed the subject in detail, the relevant paragraphs of which are as follows:
Color blindness, or color vision deficiency, is the inability or decreased ability to see color, or perceive color differences, under normal lighting conditions. Color blindness affects a significant percentage of the population.[1] There is no actual blindness but there is a deficiency of color vision. The most usual cause is a fault in the development of one or more sets of retinal cones that perceive color in light and transmit that information to the optic nerve. This type of color blindness is usually a sex-linked condition. The genes that produce photopigments are carried on the X chromosome; if some of these genes are missing or damaged, color blindness will be expressed in males with a higher probability than in females because males only have one X chromosome (in females, a functional gene on only one of the two X chromosomes is sufficient to yield the needed photopigments).[2] Color blindness can also be produced by physical or chemical damage to the eye, the optic nerve, or parts of the brain. For example, people with achromatopsia suffer from a completely different disorder, but are nevertheless unable to see colors.
The English chemist John Dalton published the first scientific paper on this subject in 1798, "Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours",[3] after the realization of his own color blindness. Because of Dalton's work, the general condition has been called daltonism, although in English this term is now used more narrowly for deuteranopia alone.
Color blindness is usually classified as a mild disability, however there are occasional circumstances where it can give an advantage. Some studies conclude that color blind people are better at penetrating certain color camouflages. Such findings may give an evolutionary reason for the high prevalence of redgreen color blindness.[4] And there is also a study suggesting that people with some types of color blindness can distinguish colors that people with normal color vision are not able to distinguish.[5] Color blindness affects a large number of individuals, with protanopia and deuteranopia being the most common types.[6] In individuals with Northern European ancestry, as many as 8 percent of men and 0.5 percent of women experience the common form of red-green color blindness.[7] The typical human retina contains two kinds of light cells: the rod cells (active in low light) and the cone cells (active in normal daylight). Normally, there are three kinds of cone cells, each containing a different pigment, which are activated when the pigments absorb light. The spectral sensitivities of the cones differ; one is most sensitive to short wavelengths, one to medium wavelengths, and the third to medium-to-long wavelengths within the visible spectrum, with their peak sensitivities in the blue, green, and yellow-green regions of the spectrum, respectively. The absorption spectra of the three systems overlap, and combine to cover the visible spectrum. These receptors are often called S cones, M cones, and L cones, for short, medium, and long wavelength; but they are also often referred to as blue cones, green cones, and red cones, respectively.[8] Although these receptors are often referred to as "blue, green, and red" receptors, this terminology is inaccurate. The receptors are each responsive to a wide range of wavelengths. For example, the long wavelength, "red", receptor has its peak sensitivity in the yellow-green, some way from the red end (longest wavelength) of the visible spectrum. The sensitivity of normal color vision actually depends on the overlap between the absorption ranges of the three systems: different colors are recognized when the different types of cone are stimulated to different degrees. Red light, for example, stimulates the long wavelength cones much more than either of the others, and reducing the wavelength causes the other two cone systems to be increasingly stimulated, causing a gradual change in hue.
Many of the genes involved in color vision are on the X chromosome, making color blindness much more common in males than in females because males only have one X chromosome, while females have two. Because this is an X-linked trait, an estimated 23% of women have a 4th color cone[citation needed] and can be considered tetrachromats, although it is not clear that this provides an advantage in color discrimination. Based on clinical appearance, color blindness may be described as total or partial. Total color blindness is much less common than partial color blindness.[10] There are two major types of color blindness: those who have difficulty distinguishing between red and green, and who have difficulty distinguishing between blue and yellow.[11][12] 7 Total color blindness 7 Partial color blindness o Redgreen 7 o Dichromacy (protanopia and deuteranopia) o Anomalous trichromacy (protanomaly and deuteranomaly) 7 o Blueyellow 7 o Dichromacy (tritanopia) o Anomalous trichromacy (tritanomaly) Immunofluorescent imaging is a way to determine red-green color coding. Conventional color coding is difficult for individuals with red-green color blindness (protanopia or deuteranopia) to discriminate. Replacing red with magenta (top) or green with turquoise (bottom) improves visibility for such individuals.[13] Color blindness can be inherited. It is most commonly inherited from mutations on the X chromosome but the mapping of the human genome has shown there are many causative mutationsmutations capable of causing color blindness originate from at least 19 different chromosomes and 56 different genes (as shown online at the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database at Johns Hopkins University). Two of the most common inherited forms of color blindness are protanopia, and deuteranopia.[14] One of the common color vision defects is the red-green deficiency which is present in about 8 percent of males and 0.5 percent of females of Northern European ancestry.[15] Some of the inherited diseases known to cause color blindness are:
7 cone dystrophy 7 cone-rod dystrophy 7 achromatopsia (aka rod monochromatism, aka stationary cone dystrophy, aka cone dysfunction syndrome) 7 blue cone monochromatism, 7 Leber's congenital amaurosis.
7 retinitis pigmentosa (initially affects rods but can later progress to cones and therefore color blindness)..
Total color blindness Achromatopsia is strictly defined as the inability to see color. Although the term may refer to acquired disorders such as cerebral achromatopsia also known as color agnosia, it typically refers to congenital color vision disorders (i.e. more frequently rod monochromacy and less frequently cone monochromacy).[22] In cerebral achromatopsia, a person cannot perceive colors even though the eyes are capable of distinguishing them. Some sources do not consider these to be true color blindness, because the failure is of perception, not of vision. They are forms of visual agnosia.[22] Protanopia, deuteranopia, protanomaly, and deuteranomaly are widely common inherited color blindness that affects a substantial portion of the human population, in which those affected have difficulty with discriminating red and green hues due to the absence of the red or green retinal photoreceptors.[23][24] It is sex-linked: genetic redgreen color blindness affects males much more often than females, because the genes for the red and green color receptors are located on the X chromosome, of which males have only one and females have two. Females (46, XX) are redgreen color blind only if both their X chromosomes are defective with a similar deficiency, whereas males (46, XY) are color blind if their single X chromosome is defective.
The gene for redgreen color blindness is transmitted from a color blind male to all his daughters who are heterozygote carriers and are usually unaffected. In turn, a carrier woman has a fifty percent chance of passing on a mutated X chromosome region to each of her male offspring. The sons of an affected male will not inherit the trait from him, since they receive his Y chromosome and not his (defective) X chromosome. Should an affected male have children with a carrier or colorblind woman, their daughters may be colorblind by inheriting an affected X chromosome from each parent.
Because one X chromosome is inactivated at random in each cell during a woman's development, it is possible for her to have four different cone types, as when a carrier of protanomaly has a child with a deuteranomalic man. Denoting the normal vision alleles by P and D and the anomalous by p and d, the carrier is PD pD and the man is Pd. The daughter is either PD Pd or pD Pd. Suppose she is pD Pd. Each cell in her body expresses either her mother's chromosome pD or her father's Pd. Thus her redgreen sensing will involve both the normal and the anomalous pigments for both colors. Such females are tetrachromats, since they require a mixture of four spectral lights to match an arbitrary light.
Blueyellow color blindness Those with tritanopia and tritanomaly have difficulty discriminating between bluish and greenish hues, as well as yellowish and reddish hues.
Color blindness involving the inactivation of the short-wavelength sensitive cone system (whose absorption spectrum peaks in the bluish-violet) is called tritanopia or, loosely, blueyellow color blindness. The tritanopes neutral point occurs near a yellowish 570 nm; green is perceived at shorter wavelengths and red at longer wavelengths. Mutation of the short-wavelength sensitive cones is called tritanomaly. Tritanopia is equally distributed among males and females. Jeremy H. Nathans (with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute) demonstrated that the gene coding for the blue receptor lies on chromosome 7, which is shared equally by males and females. Therefore it is not sex-linked. This gene does not have any neighbor whose DNA sequence is similar. Blue color blindness is caused by a simple mutation in this gene.
Diagnosis The Ishihara color test, which consists of a series of pictures of colored spots, is the test most often used to diagnose redgreen color deficiencies. A figure (usually one or more Arabic digits) is embedded in the picture as a number of spots in a slightly different color, and can be seen with normal color vision, but not with a particular color defect. The full set of tests has a variety of figure/background color combinations, and enable diagnosis of which particular visual defect is present. The anomaloscope, described above, is also used in diagnosing anomalous trichromacy.
Because the Ishihara color test contains only numerals, it may not be useful in diagnosing young children, who have not yet learned to use numerals. In the interest of identifying these problems early on in life, alternative color vision tests were developed using only symbols (square, circle, car).
Besides the Ishihara color test, the US Navy and US Army also allow testing with the Farnsworth Lantern Test. This test allows 30% of color deficient individuals, whose deficiency is not too severe, to pass.
Another test used by clinicians to measure chromatic discrimination is the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test. The patient is asked to arrange a set of colored caps or chips to form a gradual transition of color between two anchor caps.[25] The HRR color test (developed by Hardy, Rand, and Rittler) is a red-green color test that, unlike the Ishihara, also has plates for the detection of the tritan defects.[26] Most clinical tests are designed to be fast, simple, and effective at identifying broad categories of color blindness. In academic studies of color blindness, on the other hand, there is more interest in developing flexible tests to collect thorough datasets, identify copunctal points, and measure just noticeable differences.[27] Color blindness very rarely means complete monochromatism. In almost all cases, color blind people retain blueyellow discrimination, and most color-blind individuals are anomalous trichromats rather than complete dichromats. In practice this means that they often retain a limited discrimination along the redgreen axis of color space, although their ability to separate colors in this dimension is severely reduced.
Dichromats often confuse red and green items. For example, they may find it difficult to distinguish a Braeburn apple from a Granny Smith and in some cases, the red and green of traffic light without other clues (for example, shape or position). The vision of dichromats may also be compared to images produced by a color printer that has run out of the ink in one of its three color cartridges (for protanopes and deuteranopes, the magenta cartridge, and for tritanopes, the yellow cartridge). Dichromats tend to learn to use texture and shape clues and so are often able to penetrate camouflage that has been designed to deceive individuals with color-normal vision.[4] Traffic-light colors are confusing to some dichromats as there is insufficient apparent difference between the red/amber traffic lights, and that of sodium street lamps; also the green can be confused with a grubby white lamp. This is a risk factor on high-speed undulating roads where angular cues cannot be used. British Rail color lamp signals use more easily identifiable colors: the red is blood red, the amber is yellow and the green is a bluish color. Most British road traffic lights are mounted vertically on a black rectangle with a white border (forming a "sighting board") and so dichromats can look for the position of the light within the rectangletop, middle or bottom. In the Eastern provinces of Canada horizontally mounted traffic lights are generally differentiated by shape to facilitate identification for those with color blindness.
43. In the instant case, the applicants were all recruited in a hurry and even then, the DTC Medical Board held at its Head Office at I.P.Estate, could find hundreds of applicants having defective colour vision.
44. The applicants before us have claimed that they did not have defective colour vision, and that they have been certified by the Guru Nanak Eye Centre at the time of the recruitment, to be possessing normal colour vision. Therefore, now, if they indeed posses normal colour vision, they ought to be having no fear regarding their being disqualified due to detection of defective colour vision, and their possessing Red-Green Colour Blindness, even if they are subjected to another medical examination. If they indeed do not have the hereditary disease of Red Green Colour Blindness, and their optic nerve has not been damaged after their recruitment, rendering them White Black Colour Blind, the applicants and the other similarly placed 412 persons covered by the impugned Notification, cannot have any grouse against being subjected to a medical re-examination. As it is, the Government of India has also prescribed Annual Medical Health Examination policy in respect of many categories of the Government servants, who are 40 years of age, and the respondent-Corporation, as an employer, is fully within its rights to get its employees further re-examined medically, in order to make sure that its employees do not suffer from any defective vision, either DDV or DNV, or any type of colour-blindness.
45. During the arguments, the counsel for the applicants also submitted that even if any such defect has been found to have been developed in any employee, during the course of his employment, since the applicants have already been made permanent employees of Corporation, they should be protected under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short as `Disabilities Act of 1995).
46. However, the hereditary disease of Red-Green Colour Blindness cannot be equated with blindness or low vision, as has been defined in Para 2(i)(i) & (ii) of the Definition clause of the Disabilities Act of 1995. The Red Green Colour Blindness could not also have been acquired by the applicants during the course of their employment. The provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act of 1995 are very clear in this respect and state as follows:
47. Non-discrimination in Government Employment - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
47. The applicability of the protection provided under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act of 1995 will arise only if the disability is acquired during the course of the employment, and would not apply in the case of any hereditary disease, inherited by a person since his birth, from his Maternal Grandfather, through a defective Gene. Therefore, the applicants before us cannot be allowed to claim the protection of the said Act, and claim alternative employment within the DTC under the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act of 1995.
48. Therefore, if the applicants before us have nothing to hide, and have not damaged their optic nerve in the course of their employment, ever since they joined service, because of which they may have acquired Whit Black Colour Blindness in the course of their employment, due to any damage of optic nerve, or damage to all the Cones in their eyes, they should have nothing to fear while being made to undergo the re-Medical examination.
49. If, however, they had perfectly good vision at the time of their recruitment, and they have developed some non-hereditary disease of the eyes, like low vision or blindness, during the course of their employment with the respondent-Corporation, they would then be eligible for protection of the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act of 1995.
50. A parallel case had come before the same Bench in OA No.2295/2013 with OA No.2550/2013 and OA No.3355/2013 in which orders were pronounced on 08.10.2013 Balwan Singh & Ors. vs. DTC. While disposing of those three OAs together, the same Bench had taken note of the earlier judgment dated 28.09.2012 in OA No.1167/2012 Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj v. Delhi Transport Corporation & others. Before disposing of that case, we had also taken care to summon first the Doctor from the DTC Hqrs, with the Ishihara colour plates, and asked him to test some of the applicants present in the Court before us in the open Court, and later we had also summoned Dr. B. Ghosh, Director of GNEC, and asked him to submit his report in respect of the applicants of those three OAs, in regard to their tests earlier conducted in the GNEC. The Director of GNEC had at that point of time submitted his report in respect of 106 selected candidates, including the applicants of those three OAs, and, therefore, rather than deciding that case with surgical precision on merits, that case had been decided on the basis of equity, by giving certain directions as follows:-
27. In these cases not only an issue of livelihood of quite a large number of persons but also the question of public safety is involved. Had the applicants been disabled for the post of Driver, maybe being colour blind, on acquiring disability after joining the service, we could have no hesitation in asking the DTC to apply provisions contained in Section 47 of the Disability Act 1995 but in these Original Applications, the applicants were considered medically unfit for the post during the recruitment process. When the doctor from the DTC submitted that the colour blindness is by birth and cannot be incurred during the course of employment, Dr. Ghosh, Director, GNEC took a stand that a person may start lacking some colour perception even later also. Though, at this stage, we could dismiss the Original Applications as premature also but since the applicants had approached this Tribunal to seek an interim stay against their termination and this Tribunal entertained O.A. No.2295/2013 on 11.7.2013 when it came up for hearing afresh and as a result also, O.A.No.2550/2013 on 30.7.2013, and considering the fact that aforesaid two OAs involve the employment of large number of DTC, in the interest of justice, we dispose of the same with the following directions:
The DTC medical board or the board constituted in terms of the order dated 17.4.2013 would medically re-examine the applicants adopting the device followed by the GNEC and using its infrastructure, and also applying the Ishihara colour plates, for which the Director of the Centre will make all necessary arrangements, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
If the said Board (not to be interfered with by the staff of GNEC, except to the extent of making the infrastructure available) considers them fit for the post in question, they would be put back in service, In case the Board finds them again unfit for the post, the respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to complete the process initiated by them to deal with the applicants; and The applicants would submit their reply to show cause notices promptly and the present order would not stand in the way of the Corporation to pass final order. However, in the fitness of things the Corporation may have its own decision to pass final order after considering the report of the above medical examination.
51. Later on, aggrieved by the orders of this Tribunal, the respondent-DTC has since approached the Honble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 44/2014 in respect of those three OAs, in which Writ Petition, through its order dated 06.01.2014, the Honble Delhi High Court has been pleased to pass the following orders:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 44/2014 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.Chandni Mehta, Advocates.
versus BALWAN SINGH and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R 06.01.2014 Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 19th March, 2014.
C.M.No.69/2014 (for stay) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19th March, 2014.
Till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of the effect and operation of directions contained in the order dated 8th October, 2013. Anything done by the petitioner in the meantime Shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J JANUARY 06, 2014/rb
52. Therefore, since the Honble Delhi High Court has stayed the direction given by us and is now seized of the matter, it would not be appropriate for us to either issue the same or similar directions once again in the present TA also, or to decide the case with surgical precision on the basis of the above discussion on merits also. It is clear that once the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.44/2014 is known, the result of that judgment would apply to the present applicants also. Therefore, in view of this, this TA is also disposed of with the observation that the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.44/2014 would be made applicable to the applicants of the present TA. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Bhardwaj) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) /nsnrsk/