IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14277 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.184/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM- 682 302 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P & A), HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM -682 302. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT: --------------- SHANMUGHAN R, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN RESIDING AT 7/184, VADAKETHARA, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14277 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated 25th May, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.184/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant in that O.A. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent/applicant was a candidate for appointment to the post of Technician (Utilities) Grade III. Dr.Rakhesh Chandran, who examined the respondent, gave the opinion that his colour vision is partially defective, especially, red colour. Going by the job requirements of the post, a person with such a defect cannot be appointed by the writ petitioners. But, the respondent/applicant felt that the view expressed by the doctor is not correct. So, he got himself examined by Dr.Deleep Kumar, Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur. The said doctor certified that the respondent's eye sight is normal. In view of the WPC 14277/2009 2 said development, the respondent moved the C.A.T., seeking appropriate reliefs, to consider his candidature for appointment to the aforementioned post. The writ petitioners resisted the application by filing a reply statement. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, allowed the O.A., by Ext.P3 order. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “In our considered view a third opinion is absolutely necessary in the matter. We, therefore, direct the General Manager of the respondents company to refer the matter to the District Medical Officer, Ernakulam who shall form a panel of doctors to examine the applicant both on his alleged problems of hearing as well as vision. While constituting the panel the respondents may request the District Medical Officer, Ernakulam to include Shri.Rakesh Chandran also in the said panel. We also direct that the respondents shall go strictly according to the advice of the panel of doctors so appointed in the matter. The respondents shall make necessary reference to the DMO within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The result of the medical advice of the panel shall also be communicated to the applicant. Till such time the respondents shall not fill up one of the vacancy of Technician (Utilities) Grade III available with them, as ordered by this Tribunal in the O.A on 23.3.2009.” Aggrieved by the above direction, this Writ Petition is filed by the respondents in the O.A. 3. Normally, in the selection of candidates and assessment of their physical fitness, the courts have only limited role to play. But, when on a point divergent medical opinions were placed before the Tribunal, it felt that a third opinion of an expert body is required, so that truth could be found WPC 14277/2009 3 out. Therefore, the above quoted directions were issued by the Tribunal. 4. We feel that the above directions do justice to both the parties. Therefore, we feel that it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the technical contention of the writ petitioners that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction etc. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nm/