ELIAS KHAN Vs. S A I L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been successful in All India Trade Test was supposed to join Durgapur Steel Plant as a trade apprentice. But he was found unfit on account of poor vision. He was declared fit in non-work area. According to the petitioner, he was denied engagement even in non-work area though three other persons who were found unfit in work area but fit in non-work area on account of colour blindness, were given same opportunity. Petitioner moved a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court pursuant to the order passed in the said writ application, the petitioner was allowed to join as a trade-apprentice in the work area on October 22, 1996. He successfully completed the apprenticeship on October 21, 1999. On the ground that he was appointed apprentice after October 15, 1996, being the cut off date, he was denied opportunity to appear in the trade test. Petitioner moved another writ application being Writ Petition No. 17126 (W) of 1999 and A.S.T. 40383/1999. This was disposed of on June 19, 2000 by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was allowed along with some other persons to appear in the trade test. The said other persons were the persons who were declared unfit on account of colour blindness for work area. In the trade test the petitioner as well as the said three persons were successful. The other three persons were given appointment and were absorbed. But the petitioner was not given appointment on the ground of poor vision. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said decision denying opportunity.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was one of the 56 candidates who were selected for being appointed as a trade apprentice. Ultimately, out of these 56 candidates 55 candidates have been given appointment after completion of apprenticeship. It is only the petitioner who has been left out. This group related to 1994 Batch. Because of the intervening legal battle the petitioner was allowed to join as apprentice in the 1996 Batch. In the reply the petitioner has contended that one Utpal Das who was also found to have poor vision has since been given appointment in non-work area. But the said Utpal Das was a member of 1991 Batch. Thus, his appointment cannot be equated with that of the 1994 or 1996 Batch. Then, again, admittedly as contended in the writ petition, the said Utpal Das was absorbed in non-work area.

(3.) The petitioner claims appointment in the work area but this is being denied on the ground, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, that it involves the safety not only of the petitioner but also of the other persons employed in the works. Admittedly, poor vision would be a hindrance for performance of work in the work area, which may not only endanger the life of the petitioner and property of the respondents but also of the lives of other co-workers.