| Headnote |
Issue for consideration:The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court, whichdismissed his petition, claiming arbitrariness in the declining of hiscandidature as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Tamil NaduGeneration and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCOCorporation or employer), on the ground that he was colour blind.Service Law – Disability – Colour blindness – After the medicalexamination, the appellant was informed that he had colourdefective vision (colour blindness) – Corporation cancelledappellant’s selection – Appellant’s services were terminatedHeld: TANGEDCO, has nowhere indicated in express terms,that colour vision deficiency, in any form or degree, is a barto employment for AE – The facts of the case demonstratethat the appellant is fit, in all senses of the term, to dischargethe duties attached to the post he applied and was selectedfor – Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” as heis colour blind – At the same time, he does not fit the categoryof PWD under the the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesAct, 2016 – The objective material on the record shows thatthe colour vision impairment is mild – Yet, TANGEDCO’sconcerns cannot be characterised as unreasonable – However,TANGEDCO is under an obligation to work under the frameworkof “reasonable accommodation”, which is defined by Section2 (y) of the 2016 Act – Reasonable accommodation thus,is “appropriate modification and adjustments” that shouldbe taken by the employer, in the present case, without thatduty being imposed with “disproportionate or undue burden”TANGEDCO- the employer expresses its willingness toaccommodate the appellant – However, the post offered,i.e., Junior Assistant by the employer, is inconsistent with theappellant’s qualification which cannot be offered to him – Thehierarchy of posts in the corporation indicates that the primaryinspection responsibilities of technical nature are upon JuniorEngineers, who oversee the work of Technical Assistants, andthat of Linemen – It is evident that the AE works at a position ofoverseeing supervisory work of Junior Engineers – This couldinvolve, at the field stage, satisfaction after visual inspection –Sufficient safeguards (whenever the appellant’s services in thatregard are absolutely essential, and he is deployed on someoccasions) can be taken, to ensure that he is accompanied bythose without any colour vision deficiencies or impairments –Therefore, TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directedto appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE(Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, fromthe date he was terminated from service, or his appointmentwas cancelled, and accommodate him in a suitable department,where he can be given appropriate responsibilities. [Paras 20,25, 26, 27, 28] |
