Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Sujit Kumar Mahato And Ors.

,Naked eye,"Corrected with

glasses",Near vision

Better eye,6/12,6/6,0.6

Worse eye

Or

Each eye

hypermetropia",6/24,6/9,0.8

properly with his right eye. It is submitted that the respondent concealed the aforesaid defect in his application form and that the respondent is guilty of,,,

non-disclosure of vital information as regards his defective eye and accordingly the respondent is not eligible for getting appointment in the said post.,,,

It has been strenuously argued that the work of a pharmacist requires precise technical efficacy and accuracy and a person without a proper vision,,,

will not be able to perform efficiently and accurately. It was argued that in emergency situations a pharmacist may be required to attend employees in,,,

the underground mines and a pharmacist with single functioning eye cannot go underground the mines as per the Mines Rules. As per the Coal India,,,

Medical Attendance Rules a pharmacist is required to have both his eyes functioning properly. It was stated that the respondent maybe eligible for,,,

appointment as pharmacist ‘on land’ but as the post in question required the pharmacist to go underground inside the mines the respondent was,,,

unsuitable for the same.,,,

It was also submitted that the Court ought not to come in aid of the respondent as similarly situated persons may also raise their grievance and claim,,,

appointment as that of the respondent. More over the respondent did not allege mala fide on the part of the doctors or the selection committee. The,,,

respondent also did not challenge the findings of the medical examiners.,,,

The learned advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon the case of:-,,,

i) State Bank of India vs. G.K. Deshak 1994 Supp (1) SCC 70 wherein a three judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproved the,,,

approach adopted by the High Court in deciding the question of medical fitness of the respondent and on reaching a conclusion in favour of the,,,

respondent preferred the same as against the medical opinion of the doctor.,,,

ii) Ranajit Kumar Meher vs. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 568 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that,,,

there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules. Qualification is to be seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting,,,

applications.,,,

iii) Unreported judgment in the case of Puneet Srivastava vs. Coal India Ltd and Ors. where the High Court at Ranchi vide order dated 20-09-2016,,,

passed in WP (S) No. 3990 of 2015 held that as the petitioner was required to work in coal mines and the petitioner did not have any vision in its right,,,

eye, accordingly the candidature of the petitioner had been rightly rejected. The Court further held that no direction can be issued for employment of",,,

the petitioner for working in coal mines with vision in only one eye as the same will be detrimental to his personal safety.,,,

iv) National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (2) 481 where the Supreme Court,,,

held that it is not shown that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the selection committee did not act fairly towards the respondent. It should not,,,

be lost sight that the selection committee consisted of experts in the subjects for selection. They were men of high status and also of unquestionable,,,

impartiality. The Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion.,,,

v) Indian Airlines Corporation vs. Captain K.C. Shukla &Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 17 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court cannot,,,

substitute its opinion and devise its own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post.,,,

Per contra the learned advocate appearing for respondent submits that the respondent was fit to perform all the duties of a pharmacist and he could,,,

read fine print in medicine bottles and containers, medical prescriptions etc. He further submits that there was no special criterion mentioned as",,,

regards physical fitness either in the advertisement or in the application proforma and accordingly the appellant ought not to go beyond their own,,,

advertisement. He specifically submits that the respondent did not put tick mark in the visually handicapped category as the respondent cannot be,,,

termed to be visually handicapped as per the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. He submits that as the respondent had,,,

qualified in the written as well as oral interview, accordingly, he is liable to be appointed in the post of pharmacist.",,,

The learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent contended that the constitution of the medical board was not done properly as Dr. Monojit,,,

Ghosh who was a member of pre-employment medical examination board which was conducted examination on 26-03-2015 was also a member of,,,

the Apex Medical Board as well as the medical board constituted in accordance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Appeal Court and,,,

accordingly the subsequent Medical Board could not have come to an independent finding and have merely reiterated the views of the earlier,,,

examination. He further submits that the medical board which was constituted in accordance with the direction passed by the Hon’ble Appeal,,,

Court had arrived at a decision which is beyond the relevant rules. He submits that the medical board had observed that the petitioner did not have,,,

stereoscopic vision which is very much required of a pharmacist. The earlier two medical reports did not speak of stereoscopic vision and the said,,,

ground was raised for the first time in the last report. He also submits that a pharmacist is not necessarily required to go under the mines and,,,

accordingly there is not impediment on the part of the writ petitioner/respondent to be appointed as pharmacist in the coalfields.,,,

The learned advocate relies upon the following judgments:-,,,

1) Veer Pal Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence reported in (2013) 8 SCC 83 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “although the",,,

courts are extremely loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis,,,

of such opinion. What needs to be emphasised is that the opinion of the experts deserves respect and not worship and the courts and other,,,

judicial/quasi-judicial forums entrusted with the task of deciding the dispute relating to premature release/discharge from the army, in each and every",,,

case, refused to examine the records of the medical board for determining whether or not the conclusion reached by it is legally sustainable.â€​",,,

2) Dr. Krushna Chandra Shau & Ors. vs. State of Odissa & Ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 1 wherein it had been held that the decision of the,,,

selection committee can be interfered with when there was illegality or material irregularity in the constitution of the committee. In the said decision,,,

the Supreme Court relied upon the decision passed in the case of Umesh Chandra Sukla vs. Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 721 wherein it,,,

was held that the selection committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the,,,

rules.,,,

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the documents placed before this Court it appears that as per the,,,

employment notice dated 29-10-2012 there were as many as 22 vacancies in the OBC category and 43 vacancies in the general category for the post,,,

of compounder/pharmacist, Tech and Suvr. Gr. C. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court one post of pharmacist has been kept vacant till date.",,,

All the doctors who examined the respondent unanimously opined that the respondent was unfit for employment in mines as per the Coal India,,,

Medical Rules. As per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the opinion of the medical,,,

experts.,,,

The appellant has not made any statement and/or allegation that the writ petitioner/respondent will be unfit for performing the job of pharmacist on the,,,

surface. Their main contention for refusing job to the writ petitioner/respondent is that he may be unfit to go inside the mines. The job of pharmacist,,,

does not always require going inside the mines. Only in case of an emergency they may be summoned to go inside otherwise primarily they are,,,

required to stay on the surface. Moreover from the report of the medical board held on 29-07-2016 it appears that the doctors observed that the writ,,,

petitioner/respondent may be able to read prescriptions and deliver manufactured drugs with single eye but at the same time opined that to discharge,,,

the duties effectively and with accuracy one has to have both eyes functioning.,,,

It is quite plain from an analysis of the above facts that the respondent cannot be disqualified from doing each and every work required to be done by,,,

a pharmacist, under the appellant. In fact, he appears to be quite capable of doing a substantial part of the duties of a pharmacist except perhaps doing",,,

duties in the mine and in dealing with extremely small print on labels and medicine containers. His medical disability is not such so as to deprive him of,,,

this employment. In fact, it should be the endeavour of every public corporation to help this kind of people with partial physical disability by providing",,,

employment. In those circumstances, the respondent need not have been disqualified but ought to have been selected and assigned duties which he",,,

would be capable of performing according to the medical reports.,,,

Therefore, we direct the appellant to consider the appointment of the respondent in the post of pharmacist in accordance with the observations made",,,

hereinabove within eight weeks from date. The impugned order is modified and superseded to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of without,,,

any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously",,,

on compliance of usual legal formalities.,,,