Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A.V.R.K. Parama Hamsa vs Director (Personnel), N.T.P.C. ... on 6 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD221, 1998(4)ALT733
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER
1. The petitioner was an employee of the NTPC Limited. He was working as Deputy Manager (M.E.) in the Super Thermal Power Project in the year 1986. During that period his wife became seriously ill as she was suffering from Psychiotric problem. She was advised to take rest and prolonged treatment. At that stage the petitioner made a request to his employer to retain him at Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project for sometime on account of ill-health of his wife. His request could not be considered due to administrative reasons. Therefore, he had resigned from the job in July 1986. His resignation was accepted by the employer and he was relieved. Later on in March 1987 his wife recovered from illness and became normal. The petitioner then applied again for reappointment. The NTPC considered his application as he was a past employee and issued reappointnient order dated 10-4-1987 in the very same post which he was occupying at the time of resignation subject to medical fitness. On 18-5-1987 the petitioner was examined by an Opthalmologist of NTPC and the petitioner was found to be suffering from'partial colour blindness'. Thus he was found unfit for discharging his duties. Later the petitioner was got examined in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital at Hyderabad on 3-8-1987 wherein it was found that his colour vision is partially defective and that he is able to identify primary colours. Such certificate was issued by the said hospital on 21-9-1987. However, the employer withdrew the appointment order of reappointment.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has three children and a sick wife dependent upon him and partial defect in vision should not come in the way of discharging duties other than the post of Deputy Manager. The petitioner submits that denying employment on the basis of partial defective blindness is arbitrary and unreasonable. He therefore submits that the respondcnt-employer.be directed to consider his case for appointment as Deputy Manager or in any other post. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decisions in Indira v. SBI, 1983 (1) ALT 408 and Vijaya Kumar v.SBI, 1986 (1) ALT 543.
3. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent states that the petition is not maintainable. It is stated that the petition is belated and suffers from laches. The cause of action alleged by the petitioner arose sometime in June 1987 and the petition has been filed in October 1988, that the petitioner submitted-resignation on his own and was relieved at his request in July 1986 and in 1987 March he came forward with a request for re-employment. His request was considered out of sympathy and appointment was issued subject to the petitioner fulfilling necessary conditions including the proof of his medical fitness. It is further pointed out that even when the respondent issued provisional appointment letter the petitioner had to fulfil certain conditions of appointment. Colour blindness is a disqualification for appointment in any department like Operation and Maintenance and the appointment letter dated 10-4-1987 was withdrawn only because the petitioner was found medically unfit.
4. Having considered the rival contentions, I do not find that the petitioner can claim that he had any right of reappointment. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted his resignation voluntarily on account of his own difficulties. The said resignation was accepted and it came into effect in 1986 itself. Once the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end, there was no obligation on the employer to re-employ nor any right for the petitioner to seek re-employment as and when he so desired. It is not the case that there is any scheme or rule or guideline of the respondent-Company which requires the Company to reconsider the claims of persons who arc ex-employees as and when they wish to rejoin the Company at subsequent point of time after resignation. Obviously, the petitioner's claim was considered purely on humanitarian and sympathetic grounds. Norms and standards which are prescribed for persons employed in certain categories have been produced wherein colour blindness is a disqualification for almost all the posts as enumerated in the rules except for ministerial and clerical posts. This being the factual position, the petitioner who was at an advanced age of about 43 years at the relevant time i.e., at the time of seeking reappointment, could not claim that medical fitness clause should be waived in his favour. As the petitioner had no right to claim any reappointment, the question of issuing Mandamus or any writ in his favour does not arise. There is no violation of any right whatsoever. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case since the colour blindness did not come in the way of working in the post for which the petitioners therein had applied.
5. It is lastly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner was found unfit for the job of Deputy Manager, his claim should have been considered for any other post where colour blindness does not come in the way of discharging duties. The petitioner had not made any such representation. If the respondents think that petitioner's services can be utilised for any other post for which he is qualified, it will be open for the respondent to consider any representation made by the petitioner for such a post where colour blindness will not be an impediment to discharge the duties.
6. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.