MOHAMED IBRAHIM V. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTORS &ORS.

INTRODUCTION 

The appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in 2015, joining on 31.3.2017. Color blindness was later detected during a medical examination. Despite a court order directing appointment, the corporation cancelled the selection in 2019, terminating services in 2020. The High Court, in 2021, reinstated the appellant. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.(TANGEDCO)appealed, arguing color vision is crucial for the technical role. An independent ophthalmologist examined the appellant, and TANGEDCO maintained  its stance, suggesting a role change wasn’t feasible. TANGEDCO acknowledges no specified color vision norms but contends it’s essential for the post’s functions. The appellant’s eligibility for an administrative role was discussed as a compromise, given the absence of technical, color-related task.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Appellant was appointed asAssistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Superintendent’s Office, Karur in2015and he joined the services on 31.3.2017.The corporation informed the appellant about his selection and asked him to report to office of the Superintendent, Karur on 15.04.2017. Later, he was asked to produce a Physical Fitness Certificate from the Senior Civil Surgeon Government Hospital, Kumbakonam  after medical examination. After the examination, the appellant was informed that he had colour defective vision (colour blindness).By outpatient receipt (dated 15.04.2017) he was referred to Assistant Surgeon,Govt. Hospital, Musiri, Trichy District. The Asst. Surgeon confirmed that he had colour blindness and referred him to the Medical Board/ Ophthalmology Department of MGM Trichy. The Superintendent’s Office at Karur wrote a letter dated 31.10.2017 to the Medical Board, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital,requesting the appellant’s medical examination and a report based on thatexamination. The Regional Medical Board (hereafter “RMB”) asked the appellant to appear for medical examination; he was told by the medical officer that the report would be forwarded to the corporation. A  report dated 23.02.2018, from RMB, Thanjavur was sent to the respondent, stating that: ” Fitness cannot be given for the patient since norms regarding colour vision notprovided by the employer (TNEB)”. 

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Madras High Court, which by order dated 11.03.2019 directed the employer to decide the case in accordance with the RMB Report. The Medical Board, Thanjavur issued a Report dated 05.07.2019 for the persons with Disabilities in consideration of the appellant’s case. Subsequently, the corporation’s office sent a letter, cancelling the appellant’s selection, pursuant to the medical report dated 5.12.2019. 

The appellant’s services were terminated with effect from 14.05.2020. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Madras High Court through appropriate proceedings under Article 226. The High court by order dated17.03.2021 allowed the petition and directed appointment of the appellant to the post of AE (Electrical), with effect from 31.03.2017 (the date of his original appointment) Aggrieved by the above single judge order of the High Court, the employer- TANGEDCO, preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The bench was of the opinion that employer had taken all relevant facts into consideration and having regard to the nature of the duties to be discharged in relation to the post i.e., AE by the appellant Aggrieved, the appellant approached this court under Article 136 and argued that the initial notification for the post did not specify any qualifying criteria with regard to vision or colour blindness. Therefore, it was submitted that in the absence of any specific qualifying criteria in the notification, TANGEDCO’s action preventing the appellant from joining his duties is arbitrary and illegal. It was further argued that, following the High Court order dated 11.03.2019, the appellant was examined by the RMB, Thanjavur and in its report, the expert opined that the appellant had defective colour vision; its report was not specific about whether the condition could affect his duties as noted that the employer had not set out the required norms and it was hence not possible to opine whether the appellant could or could not perform his duties.The appellant relied upon the report of Aravind Eye Hospital and Post-Graduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Chennai which stated that he could identify red as orange colour and green and blue as lighter shades of those colours.  This court, by its order dated 24.1.2023, requested TANGEDCO to explore the feasibility of accommodating the appellant. TANGEDCO, in its additional affidavit, submitted that such accommodation was not possible since the appellant was selected for a particular post which requires him to be in the field for at least 10 years of his career. This role involved visual inspection of machinery with specific colour coding. TANGEDCO further submitted that the AE’s post is a technical position which involves colour coded cables and gadgets that require awareness of colours. The lack of their awareness could pose a risk to the appellant’s safety and that of the general public. 

.TANGEDCO, in its additional affidavit, urged that the appellant had not joined its services, nor worked for a day. His colour blindness came to light before he was permitted to join duty and hence, the provisions of Disabilities Act would not be applicable. This court, by order dated 5.4.2023, directed  an independent ophthalmologist to facilitate the visual examination of the appellant and give its report in sealed colour. The report was received, after which TANGEDCO reiterated its original position, declining to accommodate the appellant in any position- administrative, planning, or other general department. The appeal was heard, in these circumstances. TANGEDCO admits that there are no norms fixed by it as eligibility conditions for selection to the post of AE, vis-à-vis colour vision norms. However, it argued that as a public employer, the fitness of a selected candidate to discharge the functions required of the post, advertised, and for which a candidature is held out by an eligible applicant, having proper colour vision, is a necessary criterion. It was highlighted that an AE holds a fairly responsible position, inasmuch as initially the holder of the post, has to carry out routine inspections, to verify the work done by Linemen, Technical assistants, who are then supervised by Junior Engineers-II. Counsel for TANGEDCO, after obtaining instructions, on the previous date of hearing, stated that the appellant can be accommodated as Junior Assistant, in view of his being an engineering graduate, as holder of a degree, and that “the promotional avenues for the post of Junior Assistant/Administration are Assistant/Administration, Administrative Supervisor, Assistant Administrative Officer, Administrative Officer and Senior Administrative officer and all these posts does not have any Technical, colour related, electrical live environment nature of work

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT 

The appellant relies on Nandkumar  Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra, where the court, dealing with an Agriculture Officer aspirant assessed for color blindness, directed that the disorder should not bar appointment. The court emphasized accommodating individuals with color blindness in positions not requiring perfect color vision. Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura was cited, highlighting the Ishihara color vision test’s features and stating color vision deficiency doesn’t fall under the disability spectrum. Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India was also referenced, where despite color vision deficiency, the court granted admission, focusing on artistic appreciation.

In TANGEDCO’s hierarchy, it was argued that Assistant Engineers (AEs) have various interchangeable positions, ensuring accommodation. The appellant, being fourth in the hierarchy, could be placed in roles not requiring field participation. Emphasis was placed on the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation, utilizing the appellant’s talents within their limitations. Therefore, TANGEDCO was obligated to accommodate the appellant and continue his employment.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

TANGEDCO relies on Gujarat High Court decisions, specifically Tusharkumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat, Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State of Gujarat, and Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., where color blindness affected candidates applying for Technical Assistant positions in electrical utilities, similar to TANGEDCO’s case. The rejection was upheld based on the need to handle live wires where color is crucial. TANGEDCO also cites Sutton Et Al. v. United Air Lines, Inc., where poor visual acuity led to the denial of employment as commercial airline pilots. The US Supreme Court ruled that the claimants didn’t establish a disability under the relevant law. TANGEDCO argues that color blindness affects the ability to perform duties as an Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee), considering field and office work during training, and asserts that accommodating the petitioner in the same position is not feasible given the nature of the role.

ANALYSIS 

Considering the findings from the examination, it’s evident that the individual may face challenges in interpreting distribution line charts crucial for an Assistant Engineer’s role. Additionally, color confusion, particularly with lighter shades of green and red, poses further concerns.

Drawing parallels to legal precedents, the case of Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare establishes that certain positions may not necessitate perfect color vision, advocating for accommodation. Similar principles were reiterated in Pranay Kumar Poder and Ashutosh Kumar cases, emphasizing the importance of considering educational qualifications and talents alongside any visual limitations.

In examining the organizational hierarchy, it’s highlighted that Assistant Engineers hold a position fourth in the hierarchy, overseeing roles that involve field visits. However, the interchangeable nature of roles within the corporation offers flexibility. The argument is presented that sufficient safeguards exist, allowing placement in various departments or units that may not demand field participation.

The overarching assertion is that the employer has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation, ensuring the optimal utilization of the individual’s talents within their limitations. Therefore, the case underscores the obligation to accommodate the appellant and maintain their employment.

CONCLUSION

TANGEDCO’s position on color vision deficiency as a disqualification lacks explicit clarity, relying broadly on the candidate’s medical fitness for job responsibilities. However, the appellant, being a graduate in electrical engineering, possesses essential knowledge, practical experience, and proficiency relevant to the position. The absence of any prior indication of his color vision deficiency during education and successful completion of the selection process further strengthens his case.

Examining the legal context, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and its predecessor, emphasize the participation and empowerment of persons with disabilities (PWDs). While defining disability inclusively, the implementation of affirmative action is confined to specific benchmark disabilities, creating potential barriers. The court notes the need for a more comprehensive approach that addresses various disabilities, highlighting the current limitations in the legislation

REFERENCES 

https://www.casemine.com

https://www.livelaw.in

https://www.indianemployees.com

Written by Ratna Singh an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin