Person with low eyesight cannot be disqualified from the job: Madras High Court

W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520bbBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 15.02.2021CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHIW.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520andC.M.P.(MD)Nos.5176 5179 5180 5181 5183 5184 5185 5187 5195 5190 5192 5196 and 519201.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009.2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore Chennai 8.3.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore Chennai 8.4.The Director General of Police O o. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Chennai 600 004.5.The Deputy Inspector General of PoliceO o. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Chennai 4. ... Appellants in all the W.As. Vs.1 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520M.Salai Gayathri ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.941 2020V.Sathish ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.942 2020K.Peer Khader Mydeen ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.943 2020S.Vasim Hasina ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.944 2020R.Raja Durai ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.945 2020G.Kohila ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.946 2020J.Shyam Sundar Singh ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.947 2020S.Ragul ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.948 2020I.Sorimuthu ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.949 2020P.Jairajesh ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.950 2020M.Saranya ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.951 2020N.Gowtham ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.952 2020P.Thirumavalaven ... Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.953 2020Prayer in all the W.As. : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.5441 5467 5468 5469 4758 4759 4760 4929 4932 4930 4931 6087 and 60019 dated 30.04.2019.For Appellants in all the W.As. : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government PleaderFor Respondentin W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 946 2020 & 948 to 953 2020 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan Senior Counsel for M s.Ajmal Associates COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH J) The issue involved in these batch of Writ Appeals lies in a narrow compass viz. Is a person who could only perform a regular function by wearing 2 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520glasses would become disentitle to a post he can otherwise perform by making an assessment qua the eyesight without wearing glasses 2.All the respondents before us went through the process of recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Policeand Sub Inspector of PoliceDepartment dated 10.11.2000 by fixing the visual standards upon testing a candidate without wearing glasses. After making the respondents going through the rigour thrice they were found non suitable and their candidatures were rejected.4.The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions inter alia holding that the notification does not specify the visual standards. It is not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. What the respondents lack is only an inadequate and insufficient power in the eyes. 3 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 95205.Laying a challenge to the aforesaid order passed the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants merely relied upon the Government Order passed. The appellants being the employer of the respondents cannot question the methodology adopted. In the absence of arbitrariness or mala fides involved in the views expressed by the Medical Board the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Writ Petitions.6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that it is not even the case of the appellants that the respondents cannot undertake the job by wearing glasses. The insufficient power is only a deficiency in the eyes. If the said contention is accepted any candidate wearing specs would get exclude automatically. The Government Order relied upon itself is contrary to law and the idea to create an equal platform for everybody. A residual restriction or barrier when it does not affect the performance of the candidate will never stand a scrutiny of the law. 7.We do not find any merit in these Writ Appeals as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that it is not a case the respondents cannot function by wearing glasses. The Notification does not 4 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520specify the extent of visual standards even otherwise it is clear as the respondents can perform by wearing glasses their candidature cannot be rejected by making them to undergo a test without wearing glasses. The question is the suitability to the job and not otherwise. The classification sought to be made is certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If it is approved a candidate who is wearing specs would become disentitled for being considered to the post. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered. One has to see the eligibility and suitability of the candidate to the post but such eligibility cannot be fixed on the basis of a candidate without specs vis a vis a candidate with specs. Thus looking from any perspective we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as we are in respectful agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Government Order relied upon is outdated opaque and contrary to the wisdoms expressed by the Hon ble Apex Court. It is the insufficient inadequate eyesight that makes a person to wear a glass. Once such glass is worn then that deficiency goes. Therefore such person becomes eligible on par with the other person who performs without glasses. 5 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 95208.In such view of the matter the classification sought to be made has got no rationale as the job is sought to be undertaken as a whole. Accordingly these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.9.At this juncture the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a direction may be issued to give appointment orders as the respondents are awaiting for quite sometime despite having become qualified with their name in the provisional list. 10.We are inclined to agree with the said submission made. Accordingly the appellants are directed to give appointment orders to the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Index:Yes No [S.A.I. J.] Internet :Yes 15.02.2021smn2Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID 19 pandemic a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes but ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy shall be the responsibility of the advocate litigant concerned.6 7 n W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 9520M.M.SUNDRESH J.ANDS.ANANTHI J. smn2Common Judgment inW.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 952015.02.20217 7 

Summary: A person cannot be disqualified from a job only on the account of poor vision without glasses when the job description does not specify such visual standards and the work can be done even by wearing glasses. The judgment was given by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Salai Gayathri &amp; others. [W.A.(MD)Nos.941 to 953 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5176, 5179, 5180, 5181, 5183, 5184, 5185, 5187, 5195, 5190, 5192, 5196 and 5199 of 2020]; presided over by the bench of Hon’ble Justice M.M Sundresh and Justice S Ananthi. In the instant case, all the respondents had gone through the process of recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical) and Sub-Inspector of Police (Finger Print) and had accordingly, cleared the written examination followed by physical measurement endurance test and viva voce. They were found non-suited pursuant to the examination done by the Medical Board consists of one Eye Specialist, after having been selected provisionally. After making the respondents going through the rigor thrice, they were found non-suitable and their candidatures were rejected. And for the same, a writ petition was filed. The writ petition was thereby allowed by the bench and an order was passed stating that no notification specified the visual standards. The order was challenged by the appellants stating that “The appellants being the employer of the respondents cannot question the methodology adopted. In the absence of arbitrariness or mala fides involved in the views expressed by the Medical Board, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Writ Petitions”.  Observing the facts of the case, the court contended that a residual restriction or barrier, when it does not affect the performance of the candidate will never stand the scrutiny of the law and the court mentioned that an equal platform must be created for every candidate. The court stated that insufficient power is only a deficiency in the eyes. The court made it clear that the respondents can perform by wearing glasses, their candidature cannot be rejected by making them undergo a test without wearing glasses and it was considered a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Court mentioned that “One has to see the eligibility and suitability of the candidate to the post, but such eligibility cannot be fixed on the basis of a candidate without specs, vis-a-vis, a candidate with specs”. Hence, the writ appeal was dismissed by the court.