Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited to appoint a candidate to the post of Assistant Engineer, applying the principle of reasonable accommodation, even after he was found with "mild" colour vision deficiency, as the public sector employer also failed to express in clear terms that it was a bar to the employment.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar said that the facts of this case demonstrated that the appellant was fit, in all senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he had applied and had been selected for.

"Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” as he is colour blind. At the same time, he does not fit the category of PWD (persons with disabilities) under the lexicon of the universe contained within the Act. These challenges traditional understandings of what constitute “disabilities”. The court has to, therefore, travel beyond the provisions of the Act and discern a principle which can be rationally applied," the bench said.

The court noted that the appellant Mohamed Ibrahim was, for all purposes, treated as a person with a disability, but did not fall within the categories defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and, nor did he possess the requisite benchmark eligibility condition under the statute. 

"The objective material on the record shows that the colour vision impairment is mild. Yet, TANGEDCO’s concerns cannot be characterised as unreasonable. However, TANGEDCO is under an obligation to work under the framework of “reasonable accommodation”, which is defined by Section 2 (y)," the bench said.

It explained that reasonable accommodation, a component of the guarantee of equality, is “appropriate modification and adjustments” that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with “disproportionate or undue burden”.

The court rejected the employer's willingness to accommodate the appellant to the post of junior assistant, saying it was highly inadequate, belated, inconsistent with his qualifications and a mere palliative gesture, which he justifiably did not accept.

During the hearing, TANGEDCO was unable to show how employing the appellant in one of the many departments or units in the office of the Executive Engineer or even as AE (General) was not possible. 

"The hierarchy of posts further indicates that the primary inspection responsibilities of technical nature are upon Junior Engineers, who oversee the work of Technical Assistants, and that of Linemen. It is evident that the AE works at a position of overseeing supervisory work of Junior Engineers. This could involve, at the field stage, satisfaction after visual inspection. Sufficient safeguards (whenever the appellant’s services in that regard are absolutely essential, and he is deployed on some occasions) can be taken, to ensure that he is accompanied by those without any colour vision deficiencies or impairments," the court said.

TANGEDCO’s units and organisational structure, in this court’s opinion, have sufficient possibility for accommodating the appellant in a unit or department which may not require utilisation of skills that involve intense engagement with colour, the bench added.

The court held that TANGEDCO was under an obligation to ensure that the appellant was, therefore, suitably accommodated in any such general department or establishment.

The court directed the TANGEDCO, to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, from the date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled, and accommodate him in a suitable department, where he could be given appropriate responsibilities. 

The court also directed that the appellant would also be entitled to 50% of full arrears of salary, and all allowances, and his service shall be reckoned from the original date of appointment, (which was later cancelled), with full continuity. 

The appellant who was duly selected to the post of AE in the recruitment process was terminated on the basis of a medical report finding him with defective colour vision.

During the hearing, the court also sought assistance of advocate Mehmoud Yumar Faruqi who had life experiences of colour blindness and had collected considerable case law and literature on the subject. 

"The facts of this case instruct us that there is nothing on record to suggest that whatever condition the appellant had, was without his awareness; his academic performance, skill and proficiency, during the course of his education nowhere appears to have highlighted the colour vision deficiency, which appears to have been discovered after his selection. As a condition for his selection, he cleared the public examination successfully, and appears to have also participated in the viva voce or interview, successfully," the bench said.

Case Title: Mohamed Ibrahim Vs The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors