IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 17841 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KIRAN.V.C., AGED 31, S/O.VISWANATHAN.N., AARANI, T.C.20/1972, SASTRI NAGAR SOUTH (S-46), KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 002. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE , NEW DELHI. 2. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD., ENGINE DIVISION, BANGALORE 93, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR FOR R2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.17841 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Engineer by profession. He was formerly employed as CAD/CAM Engineer in Micro Tec, Mumbai. By Ext.P1 notification dated 3.1.2007, the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the “H.A.L.” for short, invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to various categories of posts, one among which was the post of Engineer Grade II in its Bangalore Complex. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said notification, was invited to participate in the written test and was also interviewed. After the selection process was over, the H.A.L. issued to him Ext.P3 provisional offer of appointment dated 5.6.2007. Ext.P3 states that the petitioner's appointment will be subject to receipt of “satisfactory medical report from the Company's Doctor at HAL”. The petitioner thereafter appeared for medical examination before the Medical Board at the Nasik unit of the H.A.L. on 19.7.2007. At Nasik, he was examined by a team of Doctors and found to be unfit for appointment as Engineer Grade II in the H.A.L. Ext.R2(c) is a copy of the pre-employment medical report issued by the WP(C) 17841/08 -: 2 :- Chief of Medical Services at the Nasik unit of the H.A.L. However, by Ext.P4 final offer of appointment dated 2.11.2007, the petitioner was called upon to report for duty at Bangalore by 13.11.2007. The petitioner sought and was granted extension of time upto 30.11.2007 to report for duty and he reported for duty at Bangalore on 26.11.2007. The petitioner states that though he reported at Bangalore on 26.11.2007, he was asked to await the report of the medical examination conducted at Nasik on 19.7.2007, which was not traceable and that after four days he was informed that he was medically unfit to be appointed in the H.A.L. Thereafter, at the petitioner's request on 12.12.2007 he was again subjected to examination at Bangalore by the Medical Board. Later by Ext.P7 letter dated 26.3.2008, the petitioner was informed that the final offer of appointment issued in Ext.P4 stands cancelled. Ext.P7 reads as follows: “Further to your representation dated 12.1.08 requesting for re-examination by Medical Board of HAL, you were advised to attend the Pre-Employment Examination to be done by HAL Hospital, Bangalore on 6.2.08 vide e-mail dated 30.1.08. 2. The Medical & Health Department of HAL, Bangalore after examining you on 6.2.08 has informed that you are suffering from HIGH MYOPIA with vision RE 4/60 (-6.5) LE 4/60 (-6.5) with near vision LE N05 RE N-5 and you are declared medically unfit. 3. In view of the above, we regret our inability to consider your case for appointment to the post of Engineer WP(C) 17841/08 -: 3 :- (Gr.II). Hence, the offer made to you vide letters quoted above stands cancelled. 4. However, visual disability certificate from the competent authority i.e., Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchange for PWD/Vocational Re-habilitation Centre is produced, the same will be examined to consider you under VH category.” 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 and prays for the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. b) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Engineer (Grade II), of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Bangalore Complex, based on Ext.P4 immediately. c) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pay an amount of Rs.78,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner. (The amount is calculated on the basis of the salary which was being received by the petitioner at the place of his earlier employment).” 3. The petitioner contends that as a final offer of appointment was issued after the Medical Board examined him at Nasik on 19.7.2007 the respondents cannot revoke or cancel the offer of appointment. The petitioner submits that in view of the final offer of appointment issued as per Ext.P4, he had resigned from M/s. Micro Tec and reported for duty within the time granted for that purpose. The petitioner contends that when he accepted the offer of appointment made in Ext.P3 and when WP(C) 17841/08 -: 4 :- Ext.P4 was issued after such acceptance, the offer made in Ext.P3 stood confirmed and that the H.A.L. cannot thereafter revoke or cancel the appointment offered by it and accepted by the petitioner. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit contending inter alia that in the full text of the notification published on the website of the H.A.L., of which Ext.P1 is only an extract, it was stipulated that the applicants should be of sound health and should meet the medical standards prescribed by the Company and that the appointment of selected candidates will be subject to the receipt of satisfactory medical report from the Company's Doctor as per the medical standards of the Company. The counter affidavit further proceeds to state that even in Ext.P1 notification the H.A.L. had set out that further details regarding the age, qualification and other requirements can be had by visiting the website of the H.A.L. The respondents further state that on the website of the H.A.L., the revised medical standards for pre-employment medical examination were also published and that as per the revised medical standards, candidates should have visual acuity of 6/18 in both the eyes without glasses and 6/9 in both the eyes with glasses and that the petitioner who has visual acuity of 6/60 in both the eyes with glasses, was unfit for appointment. The respondents further state that the report of the medical examination evidenced by Ext.R2(c) prepared after the petitioner was subjected to medical examination at Nasik was not available at Bangalore when Ext.P4 WP(C) 17841/08 -: 5 :- final offer of appointment was issued on 2.11.2007 and that it was without noticing the fact that the petitioner was unfit for employment in the H.A.L. that the final offer of appointment was made. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The short question that arises for consideration is whether in view of the medical standards prescribed by the H.A.L., the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in service. The respondents also state that after the dispute arose, the petitioner was again subjected to medical examination at Bangalore and that in the said examination held on 6.2.2008 also, the petitioner was found to be medically unfit. The petitioner does not dispute the authenticity and genuineness of Ext.R2(c). He does not dispute the fact that he does not have visual acuity of 6/18 without glasses or 6/9 with glasses. Ext.P1 discloses that further details regarding the age, qualification, etc. can be obtained by visiting the website of the H.A.L. Ext.R2(a) which is a full text of the notification discloses that candidates should have sound health and should meet the medical standards prescribed by the Company. It is further stated that the appointment of selected candidates will be subject to receipt of satisfactory medical report from the Company's Doctor. Ext.R2(b) stipulates that candidates seeking appointment in the H.A.L. should have the visual acuity of 6/18 in both the eyes without glasses and 6/9 in both the eyes with glasses. According to the H.A.L., on medical examination at Nasik, the petitioner WP(C) 17841/08 -: 6 :- was found to be medically unfit for the reason that he does not satisfy the aforesaid standard. Their stand is that the medical report was not available at Bangalore when Ext.P4 letter was issued. Since the petitioner disputed the stand taken by the respondents, he was again subjected to medical examination. Ext.R2(d) report discloses that the petitioner suffers from high myopia and that as per the pre-employment guidelines, he is medically unfit. In the light of the stipulations in Ext.R2(a) notification, Ext.R2(b) revised standards and Exts.R2(c) and R2(d) medical reports, it cannot be said that the petitioner is medically fit for appointment as Engineer Grade II in the H.A.L. The facts disclose that the final offer of appointment was made by the H.A.L. in ignorance of Ext.R2 (c) report and the finding of the Medical Board that the petitioner is medically unfit for employment in the H.A.L. Such being the situation, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P7. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. 6. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that after Ext.P4 final offer of appointment was issued, the petitioner resigned from M/s. Micro Tec. at Mumbai. Ext.P7 discloses that the H.A.L. has offered to examine the petitioner's case under the visually handicapped category. Having regard to the fact that by reason of Ext.P4, the petitioner had to resign his former employment and also having regard to the fact that even according to the H.A.L, the petitioner is a person with visual disability, I direct the second respondent to sympathetically consider the case of the WP(C) 17841/08 -: 7 :- petitioner for appointment under the visually handicapped category. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken and completed within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Managing Director of the H.A.L. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 4/11