Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Harshita Pandey vs Northern Coalfields Limited on 18 August, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
WRIT PETITION No.894 of 2022
Between:-
MS. HARSHITA PANDEY S/D/W/Thru:-
SHRI K.S. PANDEY
R/O NEAR KESHAV DAIRY, THANA
ROAD, WAIDHAN, DISTT. SINGRAULI
(M.P) , Singrauli , MADHYA PRADESH
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM
MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTHERN
COALFIELDS LIMITED, PANJREH
BHAWAN, MORWA SINGRAULI (M.P.) ,
Singrauli , MADHYA PRADESH
2 GENERAL MANAGER (MANPOWER
AND RECRUITMENT) NORTHERN
COAL FIELD LTD.
PANJREH BHAWAN MORWA ,
SINGRAULI , MADHYA PRADESH
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GREESHM JAIN, ADVOCATE) 2 RESERVED ON : 02.08.2022 DELIVERED ON: 18.08.2022 (O R D E R ) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging impugned order dated 24.11.2021 contained in Annexure P/8 by which provisional appointment letter for post of Account/Cost Accountant, Grade-A was cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that provisional appointment letter was cancelled on the ground that petitioner was medically unfit for the post of Accountant/Cost Accountant Grade-A. It is submitted that there is no stipulation in employment notification to disqualify petitioner from being appointed as Accountant. In absence of stipulation in advertisement regarding medical fitness and declaring petitioner unfit as per the standards applied to Miners, impugned order is bad in law. It is submitted that petitioner was a sharp student from school itself. She suffered defect in eye at the age of 2 years. Said defect did not hinder her progress and she secured 97% marks in Class-12 and thereafter also passed C.S Examination. Petitioner was working for Charted Accountant Firms and some of the firms are also working for respondent organization.
3
3. It is submitted that handicapped or disability is to be seen in connection with the post on which petitioner is to be appointed. Petitioner is doing the work of Accountant and Auditing. Minor disability of petitioner is no hindrance in her work. As there is no stipulation in the advertisement regarding medical fitness and disqualification, therefore, impugned order Annexure P/8 be quashed and respondents be directed to consider petitioner for appointment on the post of Accountant/Cost Accountant Grade-A.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment passed by Apex Court reported in the case of Amita vs. Union of India and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 721. In said judgment it has been held by Apex court in para-12, 14 and 5 as under:-
"Both Articles 14 and 16(1) have been infringed in this case. The writ was in the first instance denied equal opportunity as given to other applicants from appearing in the entrance examination on the ground of disability which was not mentioned as a condition in the advertisement. That apart, the writ petitioner, although a visually impaired lady had not asked for any special favour for selection to the post of Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner without asking for any favour had only applied for writing the examination for selection not as a reserved handicapped candidate but along with general 4 candidates who were allowed by the Board to sit and write the examination. Since the writ petitioner was similarly situated with other general candidates, and the writ petitioner had not asked for any advantage for being a visually impaired candidate it cannot be understood why she was not permitted to sit and write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank. Hence the order of the Board denying the petitioner permission to write the examination on the ground of disability cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the writ petitioner had also applied to BSRB Bangalore for the same post. There she had mentioned the fact of her disability on the application form and in spite of informing the Board she had received the admit card for the entrance test which was held on 20-2-2000 and such grant of admit card would clearly show that the writ petitioner could not be thrown out on the ground that she was a visually impaired lady, who could not be allowed to sit and write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that there is no basis to say that there no stipulation regarding medical fitness in advertisement. Employment notification dated 20.2.2020 contained general instructions for candidates. In Clause-10 Point no.xxi it has been laid down that appointment of selected candidates will be subject to being found medically fit in the Company's Medical Examination as per Rules relating to Medical Examination of CIL. It is submitted that petitioner was medically examined and as per report of Medical Examination given 5 in Rule 29B in Form "O" it was found that petitioner suffers from right eye Exotropia and Amblyopia (Right Eye) having vision 1/60 without glass and no improvement with glass. Vision 6/18 with glass (Left eye). Fundus bilateral temporal palor. In such circumstances she was declared unfit for post of Accountant. She was further examined by Medical Board Examination which again found right eye vision to be 1/60 and left eye vision to be 5/60 and her eye sight was 6/18. Medical Board Examination also found her unfit for the job.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 relied on judgment reported in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural ... vs. Smt. Shashi Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 1241. He placed relied on paras 7 and 9 of said judgment which is quoted as under:-
"7. We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the tribunal. We are of the view that once the medical board and the Appellate Medical Board found the respondent medically unfit for the post of Scientist Grade S the tribunal had no jurisdiction whatsoever to have got over the medical opinions and directed her appointment to the Service. The Tribunal out- stepped its jurisdiction and acted with an utter perversity. Medical fitness is the sine qua non for appointment to public services. It is the inherent right of an employer to be satisfied about the medical fitness of a person before offering employment to him/her. 6
9. In any case the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to exemption from medical examination or not is of no relevance because she has actually been medically examined by the two boards and she has been found unfit for the post of Scientist Grade S. She is being confronted with fait accompli. The Tribunal, in the facts of this case, had no jurisdiction to quash the medical reports."
In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent no.1 prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Advertisement contain stipulation that candidate has to be medically fit as per Rules relating to Medical Examination for CIL. Relevant provision is quoted as under:-
"10.xxi. Appointment of selected candidates will be subject to being found medically fit in the Company's Medical Examination as per the laid down Rules related to Medical Examination of CIL (available on NCL website)."
9. Medical Attendance Rules of CIL provides that vision should be of the following standards:-
Naked eye Corrected with glasses Near vision Better eye 6/12 6/6 0.6 Worse eye 6/24 6/9 0.8 Or Each eye hypermetropia 6/18 6/9 0.8 7 Minimum vision standard required for recruitment to post other than Group-A is as under:-
(xii) Vision should be of the following standard:
With or without Glass Class of Service Better Worse Better Worse eye Eye eye eye (near (Distant (distant (Near vision) vision) vision) vision) Class I & II employees 6/9 6/12 0.6 0.8 OR 6/6 6/18 0.6 0.8 Class III Senior Subordinate 6/12 6/12 0.6 ---
Employees OR
6/9 6/18 0.6
Junior Subordinate Class III, 6/12 NIL No
class IV employees excluding standard
watch and ward personnel OR
6/18 6/18
10. Considering the Medical Attendance Rules of CIL, petitioner's eye-sight was found 1/60 which is much below the standard prescribed by Medical Attendance Rules of CIL. Petitioner also suffers from bilateral temporal polar which means there is irreversible damage to retina, and ganglion cells which progressively may lead to blindness. Petitioner had not applied under persons with benchmark disability i.e. PwD category.
It has been mentioned in said notification that category of PwBD suitable 8 for the post are handicapped candidates with one arm, one leg, both legs and hard of hearing.
11. Since petitioner has applied as general category candidate, therefore, she must conform to Rules relating to Medical Examination of CIL. No error can be found if Medical Board has found petitioner unfit and cancelled her provisional appointment letter.
12. Petitioner had filed application that in special circumstances relaxation can be given. It is for the authorities to consider whether relaxation can be given or not. Authorities has already considered and had cancelled the provisional appointment letter of petitioner.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for by this Court. Writ petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.08.18 16:59:27 +05'30'