AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jasbir Singh, J.
Civil Misc. No. 2451-LPA of 2014
In view of averments made in this application, the same is allowed. Delay of 47 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
Letters patent Appeal No. 1087 of 2014
This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.3.2014 allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2013 filed by respondent No. 1-Lalit Mohan. As per facts on record, against an advertisement dated 8.7.2008, the respondent applied for the post of Shift Attendant. Taking note of his qualification and merit, he was given appointment letter subject to medical fitness. As per averments contained in the paperbook, on examination, his eye-sight was found defective by the Civil Surgeon at Narnaul and he was declared unfit to be appointed against the post in question. He was re-examined by the Board of Doctors and was declared to be fit for job. His case was referred to the PGI at Rohtak for re-examination. As per the report, vision of the respondent was found as Right Eye 6/24 and Left Eye 6/18 and Ace Right Eye - 2 Dcyl 1800 (6/18P) and Left Eye - 1-25 Dcylx 250 (6/12P) and found Nystagmus.
Taking note of report made by the PGI at Rohtak, appointment letter dated 21.3.2012 was cancelled. At that stage, respondent approached this Court by filing the above said writ petition.
It is necessary to mention here and also it is not in dispute that before his selection against the post of Shift Attendant, the respondent had been working against that very post on daily wage basis from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009. During this period, he was not found lacking in performance of his duties and there is no report against him for committing any error when working against the post of Shift Attendant.
The learned Single Judge rightly noted that as per qualification prescribed, the respondent was selected being a meritorious candidate. At the time of selection, for the past experience benefit might have been given to him. It is on record that at the time of re-examination of the respondent, a Medical Board was constituted by the Civil Surgeon at Narnaul, which declared him fit to perform the job. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the PGI at Rohtak. As per report dated 29.3.2012, it was neither said nor he was declared unfit for the job in question. The clarification was sought from the PGI at Rohtak. The matter remained pending for five months. It is on record that when the respondent was declared fit by the Civil Surgeon at Narnaul, he was not allowed to join the duty.
The learned Single Judge taking note of the provisions of "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, rightly came to a conclusion that for partial defect in eye, it was not open to the authorities to deny appointment to the respondent. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex court in Amita Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , wherein denial of opportunity to serve to a visually impaired (blind) lady was held to be improper. She was found entitled to get selected. Similarly, in the case of Shikha Malhotra Vs. State Bank of India and Another, , it was noted that on account of no vision in one eye, opportunity to serve cannot be denied to a disabled person. It is not in dispute that against the post in question, the respondent had worked on daily wage basis for about five years without any blemish whatsoever. If the performance of the respondent was good while working on daily wage basis, it is surprising that how regular appointment was denied to him.
No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal.