M ... \ mu} fi 5%) BEFGRE EeNeUR‘ABLE HIGEI cGURT a? JUIJICATdRE A? JAEALPUMMP) . wan: marITIcN No. §Z4 H i’i /2ooo. PETEONER TI .0 Baléeo Singh Ageévabout-5O years, S/Q $hri Trilok Sing}; Bhamra P.51c.153117. Designation: 0.61.73. REP-I. Bhilai $tee; Plant, ‘ Steel Authority” 6f Imiia Ltd. RIO Bhambra Bhavan, u ‘ Village-5c Post - Kohka, Distt.Durg (M.?.).. v Elks ss‘ RESPONDENTS : 1) Managing Director, H . I Emilai $t¢e1 Pmnt, ' ' ‘ Steel Authgrity or India Ltd. Islaat Bhvan,’ ‘ BHILAI’NAGAR , Tahsil & insignaugg (M.7P.).r 2).br.s.x nehéra‘ ; Amal. Speeiglist Incharge Industrial ealth. Occupatian a,né. fiea’lth Services Near. Sanyautra Bhavan, Bhilai. Steel Plant. Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bhilai Nagar, ‘ V Tah.& Distt. Burg (M.P.). Br. B.P. 5mm. Qphtharmologist/ Speeialist Room I¥b.9, Jawahar Lal Nehru‘iieslaital ‘8: Reseamh Centre, 3AIL Bhila; Steel want, H Main Hcgpital ,Sectcr-9, Bhilai Nagar‘, _ Tab. & Di$ttgnurg (MOP0)n Dr; ILA; VVishwanathan $r.Dy.Director(M&KE) J.L9N.I§os§ita1,.,& Regearch Centre‘,SAIL, V Bhilai Steel P1an‘t, 3) $ectcr-9',‘ Ehilai Naggr, $ah.& pisttr. Burg (ma). 5) Astt. §eaeial~Maaagem (Training) , Bhilai Teehnieal institute 15' I A , Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. 31w m Writ Petition No.2442/2000 anm£ ‘£FL199 W \ ¢ of Dr V.S Bath. reJecoed 1n Vlew of toe ~ mm(W)‘ \ mmirwm ‘mmw " .-2—- awmanési y ’this Court under‘Article 227 of the'ConStitution‘of India° Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner’are that the bogrd was not properlyv constituted and‘the petiiioner waswnotim@aicaily examined.and there’are no'documents to shew or Suggest that the petitioner suffered wth tne colour blmsne «5? " His second submiSsion is tmat as the petltloner is fn/ flt for the services, the,reSppndents,are duty bammiand ~obliged so provide him som éLternative job; So far as hAs‘que tion\regarding the availabiliiy f the'medical evidence a the‘ceriificates o£=£he medlca1 Oplnlonf d&»conce d” ;t can straightway be ‘JHAUAL wnlch are dva11ab1e on rec rd as Annexure PuB. Ee has clear1y stated on oatn tna{ *he petitioner was nxamlned by medlcal board. he,hlms 1f was toe mead of the ,x” ‘department of Ophthalmolog and he was ah eye—spgkhalj>). He further stated that the petltloner suffered wlth the coiour bllndness. In hls eross—examlnatlon, no even a‘ Single word has been askedgas to whether the petitioner i‘x was sufferlng w1th the col ur bllndness or not. A feabh5/ ttempt Was made to refer to the back portion entrres m de on Annexure P—5a Unfortunately, that part of the dOoument was hen out to DrgBath. Adm1331on ofa document or adm1s310n of Slgnature on a dooument would not tantamount adm1§glaw2the contents of the documenta Under these g a § { Cir cum s Va nc e ssefheesfbmssmhammadwhysmamas t T” counsAe1 JC j 9 Q a i i‘ 1 é n“ r e L u tEEE w.P, No,2442/2o 3i$3Wmau{ ' Chhattisgarh,Bi1aspur. OO So far as the secon c0ncerned,\from’the judgment appears uhat»the appellake C favour of the petiiioner and >his favour, vThe petitioner employer in‘éecordance with I find no reason to is diSmissed. Certified cepy on u d limb of‘the argument is of the Court below it clearly curt has already Observed in :has made‘recommendations in is free to @proach his the said observations. interfere; The petition ;’ “FwnaawE: rn%3x ‘Ft199 ‘ &ra$r Murmairwm' rr$a$m §w$a%a aé$¥amRR%€ ‘ _3_ aamqm ‘for the petirioher cannot be,accepteda