Issue for consideration
The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed his petition, claiming arbitrariness in the declining of his candidature as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO Corporation or employer), on the ground that he was colour blind. Service Law – Disability – Colour blindness – After the medical examination, the appellant was informed that he had colour defective vision (colour blindness) – Corporation cancelled appellant’s selection – Appellant’s services were terminated – Propriety: Held: TANGEDCO, has nowhere indicated in express terms, that colour vision deficiency, in any form or degree, is a bar to employment for AE – The facts of the case demonstrate that the appellant is fit, in all senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he applied and was selected for – Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” as he is colour blind – At the same time, he does not fit the category of PWD under the the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The objective material on the record shows that the colour vision impairment is mild – Yet, TANGEDCO’s concerns cannot be characterised as unreasonable – However, TANGEDCO is under an obligation to work under the framework of “reasonable accommodation”, which is defined by Section 2 (y) of the 2016 Act – Reasonable accommodation thus, is “appropriate modifi cation and adjustments” that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with “disproportionate or undue burden” – TANGEDCO- the employer expresses its willingness to accommodate the appellant – However, the post offered, i.e., Junior Assistant by the employer, is inconsistent with the appellant’s qualification which cannot be offered to him – The hierarchy of posts in the corporation indicates that the primary inspection responsibilities of technical nature are upon Junior Engineers, who oversee the work of Technical Assistants, and that of Linemen – It is evident that the AE works at a position of overseeing supervisory work of Junior Engineers – This could involve, at the field stage, satisfaction after visual inspection – Sufficient safeguards (whenever the appellant’s services in that regard are absolutely essential, and he is deployed on some occasions) can be taken, to ensure that he is accompanied by those without any colour vision defi ciencies or impairments – Therefore, TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, from the date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled, and accommodate him in a suitable department, where he can be given appropriate responsibilities. [Paras 20, 25, 26, 27, 28]
Headnote
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021] 13 SCR 823; Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission [2021]12 SCR 311 – relied on. Tusharkumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat SCA No.8611/2020, decided on 08.02.2022; Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State of Gujarat 12 SCA 2916/2022, decided on 11.02.2022; Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. C/LPA 331/2022, decided on 23.09.2022; Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra [1995] (Supp 4) SCR 565; Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura [2017]
2 SCR 797; Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India [2022]
16 SCR 1094 – referred to.
Sutton Et Al. v. United Air Lines, Inc 527 US 471 (1999) – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India.
Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs),
CC BY 4.0.
