PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Asso.prof.(commerce & Management)
Harsh Kumar Mehta
Consultant In Labour Laws/hr
Consultant In Legal Matters
Firdous A Ansari
Use factoHR and automate your HR processes
Mobile-first hire to retire HR and Payroll software that automates all HR operations and works as a catalysts for your organisational growth.
K.LalithaDear Mr /Ms,
I don't about your problem but I am working in a eye hospital, here we have very eye consultant and very seniors also even the foreigner also coming here for treatment, if possible you can come and consult in my eye hospital, you may go for corneal transplant surgery you will get the solutions.
our address is
Sankara Eye Hospital
Coimbatore - 641035
From India, Coimbatore
Harsh Kumar Mehta1. Sir, I think there is some reservation meant for disabled persons under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder. Whether you have tried for Govt. jobs under provisions of above Act after following the procedure laid down under said Act.
2. Under provisions of said Act"person with disability" has been defined as a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. Whether you have obtained any certificate of disability under said Act ?
From India, Noida
email@example.comLooking into the facts and decision of the following decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pl file writ petition before HC in consultation with a good HC Advocate to get appointment on the post on which you were selected but rejected on medical grounds:
"Shikha Malhotra vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 6 December, 2007:Equivalent citations: (2008) 149 PLR 431 (P&H)
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P.5), whereby the petitioner was declared unfit for appointment as a Probationary Officer in the service of the respondent-Bank.
2. Vide advertisement No. CRPD/PO/2005/03 (Annexure P.1), the respondent-Bank invited applications for recruitment of 509 Probationary Officers in the said Bank. The last date for receipt of the applications was 14.7.2005. The written examination was to be held on 11.9.2005. In advertisement (P.1), there were 12 posts reserved for visually handicapped persons (General Category). The petitioner was one of the selected candidates for appointment as Probationary Officer in the General Category. However, during the course of medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was having an artificial right eye I.e., Prosthetic Shell, whereas the vision of the left eye of the petitioner was 6 x 6 I.e., complete vision. The petitioner was refused appointment on the ground that she was medically unfit. The petitioner was not given the post meant for visually handicapped category as well as the case of the petitioner is not of the total absence of sight. Thus, the petitioner was not appointed even as visually handicapped person. Since the petitioner was not being appointed either as a General Category candidate or as a visually handicapped candidate, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. In reply, it has been pointed out that the standard of fitness laid down for new recruits prescribes minimum standard for the eye. Since, the petitioner does not have any vision from the right eye, she is not medically fit for appointment. It is also pointed out that in terms of a the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner cannot be treated as a visually handicapped candidate as well. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly declined.
4. There was no condition in the advertisement (P.1) in respect of the vision of a candidate or that the medical fitness requires a particular vision. As per the guidelines for the medical examinations of the new recruits/promotees, the aim of the medical examination is that a candidate must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect "likely to interfere with the efficient performance duties of his/her appointment." The only disability which could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments for discharge of duties was that due to increase use of computers, the petitioner may not be able to perform her duties. It has been pointed out that one eyed person will not have three dimensional visions, which is considered necessary for the post of Probationary Officer.
5. However, the said stand of the respondents is nothing but based upon surmises and conjectures. The vision of the petitioner with left eye is 6 x 6 and there is no distortion. Once, the vision of the petitioner in respect of one eye is not wanting in any manner, the denial of appointment on the ground that the petitioner cannot see from other eye is depriving of an appointment to an eligible candidate. If the respondents can appoint a totally blind person as a Probationary Officer, it could not be explained as to why, the petitioner who has 6 x 6 vision from one eye, cannot be appointed. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a candidate who is totally blind or has impaired vision is eligible for appointment against the seats reserved for visually handicapped persons. No doubt, the petitioner is not suffering from a disability within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, but it cannot be said that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as a general category candidate as well. The petitioner has to fall in one or the other category. If the petitioner is not entitled to reservations for the post meant for visually handicapped category, the petitioner has to be treated as a general category candidate.
6. In fact, denied of opportunity of appointment on such ground is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is being denied right of appointment for wholly untenable reason. The stand of the respondent is without any justification and is wholly arbitrary and has caused manifest injustice to the petitioner.
7. Reference may be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amita v. Unon of India . In the said case, the candidate was not even permitted to appear as a candidate for appointment to the post of a Probationary Officer. During the pendency of the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Union of India has filed an affidavit in respect of certain jobs which could be performed by the visually handicapped persons. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the Union of India, wherein it was stated to the following effect:
It was further stated that the writ petitioner being a visually impaired candidate has to either appear in the examination for selection under the reserved category or she can appear with the general candidates. It was further clarified that if she wants to appear as a general category then she has to compete with the general category candidates only and she cannot be given any weightage as the same would amount to discrimination to others competing with her in the said category. It was further clarified the position that O.M. No. 36035/4/2003-Establishment dated 8.7.2003 provided that the vacancies reserved for any category need to be filled by persons belonging to that category and such vacancies are not open to others. On the other hand, unreserved vacancies are open to all and reserved category candidates cannot be denied the right to compete for appointment against such vacancies, provided they are otherwise eligible.
8. Considering the stand of the Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has returned a finding that the nature of duties of a Probationary Officer can be performed by a visually impaired candidate and some percentage of impaired candidates are entitled to be selected and appointed as Probationary Officers of the Bank either from the General Category or from the reserved category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Said judgment has observed as under:
That apart, the writ petitioner, although a visually impaired lady had not asked for any special favour for selection to the post of Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner without asking for any favour had only applied for writing the examination for selection not as a reserved handicapped candidate but along with general candidates who were allowed by the Board to sit and write the examination. Since the writ petitioner was similarly situated with other general candidates, and the writ petitioner had not asked for any advantage for being a visually impaired candidate, we failed to understand why she was not permitted to sit and write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank.
At the risk of repetition, it may be reiterated that the writ petitioner fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post. The primary object which is guaranteed by Article 16(1) is equality or opportunity and that was violated by the Board by debarring the writ petitioner from appearing in the examination on the mere fact of disability which was not mentioned in the advertisement and which according to the writ petitioner is not an impediment for the post. We are therefore, of the view that the action of the Board was arbitrary, baseless and was in violation of the right of the writ petitioner under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
9. In the present case the petitioner has not sought any reservation as a visually handicapped person, therefore, she as a General Category candidate is entitled to be appointed as Probationary Officer.
10. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside and quashing the impugned order (Annexure P.5) and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The consequential benefits shall include pay fixation and seniority from the date, the other appointments were made, pursuant to advertisement (P.1). However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary prior to her appointment. Such directions be complied within a period of two months from today."
In case any difficulty is there pl revert back.
From India, New Delhi
Before going into the legal protection available from various acts, you should first make sure whether the job requirement stipulates essentials as clear eye sight and other physical standards. And any deficiency will result in rejection of your case. Many tech and other jobs bar such defects, because clear vision would be essential qualification required for the job. If there is no such stipulation then you should use the materials mentioned by our learned friends herein.
All the best.
From India, Bangalore
firstname.lastname@example.orgWhen the aggrieved is going to challenge the rejection on account of medical unfitness because of one eye blindness, even if the circular or advertisement is floated by Govt.barring such person in respect of any post, then that issue or circular or advertisement is also open to challenge as violative of article 14 of the Constitution because even if adertisement provides such a bar or condition, that condition will be unreasonable having regard to nature of post in question. In the following decision of the Allahabad High Court, the circulars of the Bank denying opportunity of employment of one eyed persons as clerks and officers, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue raised is more a human right issue, than a disability issue. It is no longer open for the Govt/Bank to contend that that a person with one normal eye is medically unfit to the officer's job in the Bank:
Judgment delivered on 18.3.2011
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.35898 OF 2009 (Allahabad)
Yogesh Dutt vs Union of India & others
"The Circulars of the Bank denying opportunity of employment of one eyed persons as clerks and officers, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue raised in the present case is more a human right issue, than a disability issue.
29. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment as a Probationary Officer. After change of the approach to the physically handicapped persons, under PWD Act, it is no longer open for the State Bank of India to contend that that a person with one normal eye is medically unfit to the officer's job in the Bank."
Let us not give our widom as to what one should firstly check and put parameters. The lawyer will be the better person to see the contours of grounds he will take. If the aggrieved is further made disheartened to see advertisement conditions irrespective of their reasonability in the context of the post, we will be doing more harm than expected.
From India, New Delhi
9641537234Thanks to everybody here who have share their valuable comment's.After I read the comments ample of questions arise to me.As I told already,I was recruited in PSU sector through campus recruitment and I was declared medically unfit .Again I started preparing for govt sectors with these hope that something will happen.
Now I have these question that should I fill the form in PH quota or general quota?And if I fill the form in any of these quota ,again I will be facing the same problem as Ms Shikha had faced then at that instance what should I do?I will directly file a case ?please tell me the complete procedure.
From India, Chennai
Harsh Kumar Mehta1. Sir, I understand that seniors and experts have already expressed their views on the issue as above. In my opinion, much will depend on the facts of your case and particularly the facts like: (i) whether you have obtained necessary certificate of disability under provisions of Act and rules as mentioned by me in my remarks as above (ii) whether while submitting application for the post, you had indicated clearly that you are applying under reserved quota meant for disabled persons & (iii) whether in the department to which you had applied and were successful ( but rejected due to disability as mentioned by you) there exist any post meant for disabled persons under said category and (iv) your position in merit list published by department on the basis of written/competitive examination, if held.
2. I will also suggest you to please go through the reservation rules as adopted and applicable in the govt. sector unit as mentioned by you. If found suitable, as suggested by seniors and experts, you can engage an advocate and take action accordingly.
From India, Noida
email@example.comIt is clear that PH posts are not many and frequency of advt is less. If you are able to such certificate you can also apply against PH posts. Despite having certificate of ph you can also apply for general quota posts. If nature of post does Not require any impediment for such drawback then challenge it.
From India, New Delhi
Firdous A AnsariDear Friend,
Don't get disappointed by rejection of medical ground. The world has ample opportunity, have trust in self & Almighty... when one door closes 100 more open. I think you might not be aware of but for Mining & petroleum industries it is mandatory to be medically fit even colour blindness is also not allowed. Therefore you should try to look for other opportunity instead of wasting your time. You are already PG from IIT any good engineering college will take you as professor or look for consultant who are in business of identifying geo resources by using computer based simulators. There are plenty of opportunities, don't worry you will get better than what has been taken by you.
All the best.
From India, Mumbai