NISHANT RANJAN Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH SECRETARY AND UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue for our consideration in the instant case is that whether the action of the Medical Board and the Appellate Board declaring the applicant 'unfit' for all services on account of 'bilateral flat foot' is contrary to the regulations relating to physical examination of candidates attached as Appendix to the Engineering Services Examination Rules, 2010 [hereinafter referred to as 'ESE Rules, 2010'].

(2.) THE case of the applicant, in brief, is that he is a IIT Graduate and has been serving NTPC ' a Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) of the Government of India since 29.05.2009. He appeared in the Engineering Services Examination under the ESE Rules, 2010 and was placed at serial no.32 in order of merit. He appeared before the Medical Board and was declared unfit for all services on account of bilateral flat foot as communicated vide letter dated 11.08.2011. An appeal filed by the applicant was rejected by the Appellate Board communicated vide letter dated 14.09.2011 declaring him unfit for all services. The order of the Appellate Board goes ahead to state that it was final and no further correspondence would be entertained in this regard.

(3.) THE principal argument of the applicant is that the Medical Board conducts the physical examination under the overall parameters of Regulations relating to physical examination of candidates which are contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The latter provides guarantee of equal opportunity to all citizens in matters of appointment to any office and the same cannot be taken away by subjective satisfaction of the executives. Moreover, the Regulations mention various disabilities which make a person unfit but flat foot has not been mentioned as a disability rendering a person unfit for appointment to the post in question. The yardstick governing the medical examination is to secure continuous effective service for the Government and to prevent losses being caused to it on account of premature death occurring. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that being bilateral flat foot is no bar to the applicant rendering effective service for long periods. Moreover, such medical examination creates classes of citizens - those who have cleared the medical fitness and those who have not. Article 14 of the Constitution does not allow any such artificial distinction to be made. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been a brilliant student and is discharging his duties in the NTPC satisfactorily. Moreover, there are many engineering services included in the IES where flat foot is not a disability. The applicant has also relied upon the principle of reasonable accommodation and that the costs involved in his rejection far outweighs the gains from rejection as there are no commensurate compensatory factors. The learned counsel for the applicant repeatedly referred to studies that indicated that flat foot does not deter or interfere with the inability of the persons to serve effectively. It was on this account that even the Australian Air Force had recruited personnel suffering with flat foot. Moreover, medical and congenital conditions do not rule out the right to life as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of K. Gangadhar versus A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another [ : 2007 (1) ALD14]. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has eloquently argued that the reliefs prayed for, as noted above, may be granted to the applicant.