MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM V. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

CITATION	CA No. 6785 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	16th OCTOBER, 2023
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM
RESPONDENT	THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS.
BENCH	S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J & DIPANKAR DUTTA, J

INTRODUCTION

Mohammad Ibrahim v. The Chairman and Managing Director is a case that revolves around the nuances and different parts of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The respondents sent a notice of cancellation of candidature to the appellant on the basis of he being colour-blind. The appellants filed a lawsuit in high court, and the single-judge bench preferred the contentions of the appellant. The verdict was overturned by the divisional bench of the same Madras High Court (hereinafter referred to as HC) on the ground that the position is too much technical and does require a person to be fully fit with regards to the sight. A subsequent appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court  (hereinafter referred to as SC) overruled the HC’s decision to favour the contentions of the appellants and mandated the respondent employer to accommodate the appellant at the post applied considering his education qualification and the nature of the job. By the ruling in this case, future legal processes pertaining to the issues in the Indian legal system would be influenced, which clarifies the interpretation and implementation of pertinent legal laws and concepts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the statement, the appellant had entered the service in 2017 after being appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (hereinafter AE) by the Superintendent’s Office, Karur (hereinafter referred to as SO), in 2015. The appellant was notified by the company about his selection and requested to report to the SO. After a medical examination, he was later required to present a Physical Fitness Certificate from the Senior Civil Surgeon Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. The appellant was told that he was colour blind after the examination. The SO requested for the appellant’s medical examination and a report based on that examination from the Medical Board of Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. The Regional Medical Board sent a report stating that the same cannot be done as the norms regarding the colour blindness were not given by the respondent company. The Medical Board, issued a report for the Persons with Disabilities, based on which the SO cancelled the appellant’s selection. The appellant approached the HC where his contention for the petition was upheld. The respondent in response, preferred writ appeal to the divisional bench which took into consideration the contentions of the respondent and gave the judgement in favour of the employer thereby cancelling the appellant’s candidature on the note that the appellant could not prove the arbitrariness in the impugned decision of the employer. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the SC under article 136 of the Constitution against the cancellation.

ISSUES OF THE CASES

1. Can the appellant be accommodated in the service?
2. Whether the respondent’s decision involves any element of arbitrariness?

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent contended that-

1. Accommodation was not permissible since the appellant was chosen for a specific position that necessitates a minimum of ten years of experience in the sector.
2. The position entailed visually inspecting machinery that was color-coded. That the AE’s job is technical in nature, including devices and color-coded wires that call for colour perception, so the safety of the public as well as that of the appellant might be in danger due to their ignorance.
3. The appellant had not signed up for its services and had not worked even for a single day. Since it was discovered that he was colour blind before being allowed to report for duty, the restrictions imposed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as The Act) would not apply.
4. The employer acknowledged that in terms of colour vision standards, it does not have any standards that specify eligibility for the position of AE. On the other hand, it contended that, being a public employer, a prerequisite for selection is the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of the advertised position for which a qualified applicant with appropriate colour vision has included in their application.
5. The appellant can be accepted as a Junior Assistant since he has a degree in engineering and is eligible for promotion to the position because it does not include any technical, electrical, or colour-related work in a live setting.
6. The respondent employer relied upon two single judge decisions of the Gujarat High Court- Tushar Kumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat and Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State of Gujarat and a Division Bench judgement in Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., all of which cancelled the candidatures of the candidates who were reported to have colour blindness for the technical posts and posts of similar nature. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The Appellant contended-

1. The appellant relied on the Sankara Nethralaya Hospital report, which disclosed that he had a moderate colour vision impairment and that interpreting distribution line charts, which are essential for AEs to perform their job profile of judging line running, might provide challenges.
2. The appellant cited the case of Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra, in which the court considered an applicant for the post of Agriculture Officer. He was determined that he was colour blind but the Bench instructed that the illness or purported flaw shouldn’t be a barrier to appointment and that he ought to be given a job that is in line with the additional criteria of the organisation. The court believed that apart from certain jobs, there were additional cadre roles that did not require a flawless colour eyesight and that accommodations shall also be made for those who are colour blind.
3. Additionally, the appellant also cited the Court’s ruling in Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura, which emphasised the characteristics of the Ishihara colour vision test. It was stressed that colour vision deficiency is not a condition that prevents someone who is suitably qualified from being employed in a company that can value the talents and educational accomplishments, nor is it a form of impairment of vision that would fall under the category of disabilities covered by The Act.
4. The appellant argued that since the job of Assistant Engineer lies fourth in the hierarchy, all the other three were required to do field jobs requiring the Assistant Engineer to supervise them. Also the fact that the post was inter-changeable with other posts as per the needs and requirements made the contention of the appellant stronger.

JUDGEMENT

From the observations, it was observed that nowhere in the employer respondent’s policy has it been explicitly stated that colour vision impairment of any kind prevents AE from being hired. Its general contention is that a candidate’s degree of medical fitness required to perform duties and obligations assigned to the position is ordinary. However, that wide wording is insufficient justification to rule out the prospect of any kind of accommodation. As an electrical engineering degree, the appellant’s need for, and right to, some sort of accommodation, in this instance, is evident. This suggests that he possesses knowledge beyond the fundamentals or necessities of the field; he is aware of and has expertise in recognising the functioning of a wide range of electrical appliances and equipments. A prerequisite for passing an electrical engineering degree is having hands-on experience and learning about the operations of appliances and other machinery, the potential flaws and fixes for their malfunction. The circumstances showed that nothing in the documentation indicates the appellant’s condition, that he was unaware of his academic standing, aptitude, and competency. Throughout his schooling, nothing seems to have emphasised the colour vision impairment, which seems to have been identified following his choosing. His selection was contingent upon passing the public exam effectively, and it looks that they took part in the interview or viva voce, effectively. The Act sets out provisions to enable participation, and empowerment of persons with disability (PWD), including affirmative action for their admissions to various institutions and positions.

The position of Junior Assistant which the employer/respondent is willing to offer the appellant is insufficient keeping in mind the qualification of the appellant. The appellant’s contention of the supervisory role played by the Assistant Engineer is convincing and weighs more on the Balance of Justice when weighed with that of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was directed to assign and maintain the appellant in its service as an AE at the proper pay grade starting on the date of his termination or cancellation of appointment, and place him in an appropriate department. Along with these benefits, the appellant was also entitled to 50% of any unpaid wage arrears and his service was fully accrued from the initial date of appointment which was subsequently cancelled until the present.

ANALYSIS

The Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region was signed by our nation, which prompted the Parliament to passed the Act. Provisions that encourage participation and empowerment of people with disabilities (PWDs) are found in both the present Act and the preceding Act. Affirmative action plans for PWD admission to schools, entry-level reservations in businesses run by the state or its agencies, and general rules that make physical access to institutions easier are a few examples. To maximise their full involvement and functioning, the Act also mandates that PWDs be supplied with physical infrastructure accommodations at all times. Its rules defining “disability” and people with disabilities are quite detailed; these categories are defined inclusively, which opens up new applications. The Act contains provisions for equality and non-discrimination, ensuring the persons with disability enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity respect for his or her integrity equally with others. But the thing which needs to be noted here is that the affirmative actions and other similar benefits are availed by only those specific category of PWD who qualify with a certain threshold of disability (40 per cent or more).

The mild colour-blindness of the appellant does not fit the category of PWD under the lexicon of the Universe contained in the provisions of The Act. The appellant couldn’t be categorised as a PWD. Yet, the employer’s concerns couldn’t be termed as unreasonable as claimed by the appellant. But that didn’t give the immunity to the respondents to cancel the candidature of the appellant. The Court was of the opinion that the appellant would have been too underrated to have been at the position of a junior assistant with the level of qualification he had and therefore to impart justice, the cancellation was terminated.  

CONCLUSION

In conclusion the case is more or less that of common-sense, the facts being more or less the daily situations, which people encounter. The case though appearing to be argued on merits, the case does not involve any substantial question of law. The case was argued on the nature of the position contended and therefore the Act brought into light was mentioned just to highlight the lexicon of “PWD” and analyse it through the facts, only to realise that it was not so substantial. Thus, the case serves as an important precedent for the upcoming litigations in these aspects and would become one of the major authorities for subsequent cases falling under the same domain of issues.

Written by Kush Shanker 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.