K INDIRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises an important question of standard of medical fitness for obtaining employment under the State.

(2.) The petitioner is a B.Sc., candidate and a qualified typist and a stenographer. She applied for the appointment of the post of the Clerk- cum-Typist in the State Bank of India in the month of November, 1977. She passed the written examination on 8-1-1978 and was also selected in the interview on 29-4-1978. To her misfortune the Doctor of the Bank disqualified her as she was operated for Hypothyrodism about four years ago and she needs periodical examination, assessment and drug treatment for life. Thereafter she produced a certificate from the Civil Surgeon Mr. A. S. Chary stating that she underwent operation in August, 1974 for primary Thyrotoxicosis and she is now in perfect condition to take up job in any undertaking. The certificate further recites that the operation performed on her will in no way affects her normal health in discharging official duties of any organisation. In view of this conflicting medical opinion she appeared before the Osmania General Hospital Regional Medical Board as per the advise of the bank and the Medical Board consisting of three members examined her and gave the following certificate in these terms:

(3.) Sri V. Jagannadha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued broadly two questions; (1) Once the Medical Board gave opinion about the fitness the State Bank which is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution cannot refuse employment arbitrarily. (2)The arbitrary and irrelevant considerations constitute unreasonable exercise of power which is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. He further amplified his submission stating that the right of employment in the State cannot be denied to the petitioner as the tests for selection are objective but not subjective. Like any private employer, the State cannot deny the employment without any objscetive standards, but purely on subjective satisfaction. The denial of employment of the petitioner who was selected on merit both in written and oral examination constitutes an unreasonable exercise of the power of the Bank which is a State and the said question is justiciable.