The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.GM(NW-2)/RTIA/92302 dated 08.12.2009 passed by the respondents and quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider appointing the petitioner in the clerical cadre under the respondent Bank.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for appointment to the post of Clerical staff (Assistants) in the respondent Bank, for which, she had attended the written examination held on 06.07.2008. On being qualified in the written examination, she was called for interview to be held on 14.10.2008, where she attended the interview also. After having successfully completing both the written Test as well as the Interview, she was provisionally selected for the post, however, subject to Medical fitness. Therefore, the petitioner was sent for medical examination. The petitioner subjected herself for the said medical examination at the Eye Hospital, as the petitioner has lost sight in one eye. Even though, the Ophthalmologist has given certificate to the respondent Bank that because of the vision lost in the left eye of the petitioner, the same would be quantified only as 30% and that vision loss cannot be considered as a visually incapacitated person and therefore, she can be considered for any job in clerical in nature.
3. In spite of these facts, though the petitioner had been selected originally after oral test and interview, she had not been given posting or appointment by the respondent probably for the reason of loss of sight in one eye and there was no order passed to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner had again and again requested the respondents to give her appointment. One of such representation dated 31.08.2009 was considered by the respondents and a cryptic reply has been made by the respondents in the order dated 15.12.2009. Even before that since there was no response from the respondents on her representations, the petitioner had also requested the respondent Bank through the Right to Information Act, about the information regarding her appointment. In response to the same, on behalf of the respondents, the Public Information Officer by order dated 08.12.2009 has communicated the petitioner that as per the existing guidelines on Standard of Medical Fitness, one eyed candidates are barred for recruitment in clerical cadre. Challenging the said order, dated 08.12.2009, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no bar for appointment of one eyed vision candidate in the clerical cadre (Assistant) in the Nationalised Bank, especially in the respondent Bank. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the relevant guidelines issued by the Bank, which, in fact, the petitioner has reproduced at paragraph No.10 of the affidavit, which reads thus:
?One eyed candidates, provided the other eye has normal vision or is corrected to normal with glasses with maximum myopia or hypermetropia +4.00D. Or 4.00D. Should be appointed in Clerical Cadre Staff only. An undertaking should be obtained from one eyed candidate to the effect that in the event of any deterioration in the eye sight his/her services should be terminated forthwith. One eyed candidates are unfit for appointments/promotions to Supervisory Cadre.?
6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the said guidelines issued by the respondent Bank, there can be no further impediment for the respondents to take the petitioner for job, as her one eyed vision would no way stand in the way of considering her candidature for appointment.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank would rely upon the circular dated 16.12.2006 issued by the respondent Bank, according to the said guidelines, the eligibility criteria for various posts had been modified. Insofar as the candidates having one eyed vision, the following shall be the revised guidelines, which is reproduced hereunder:
Revised eligibility criteria
(h) One eyed candidates Barred in officer's cadre. (However may be selected in clerical cadre if eyesight of better eye does not have myopia/hypermetropia of +/- 4.00D and can be corrected One eyed candidates would be barred from all furthe recruitment in clerical or officer's cadre.
8. Therefore, the learned standing counsel would submit that since the one eyed candidates are totally barred from all further recruitment in clerical or Officer's cadre, the petitioner's candidature cannot be considered for any appointment including the one for which, she was considered. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is not physically fit for holding any post at any clerical cadre or any other cadre, she was not considered for the said appointment, even though she has come out successfully in the written as well as oral Test.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side by the learned respective counsel and perused the materials placed before this Court.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is having defect in one eye and in fact, is having the vision of only one eye. In respect of one eyed candidates, the revised guidelines of the respondent Bank, as stated above, where such candidates have been barred from considering for any appointment either in the clerical cadre or in the officers cadre. While that being so, this Court cannot compel the respondents to take the petitioner for appointment either to the clerical post or in the officer's cadre post. However, since the petitioner is a well qualified person and she has also proved her eligibility by successfully passed in her written as well as the oral test conducted by the respondent Bank for the said recruitment, being a disabled person, the benefit of the intention of the welfare legislation, namely, Persons with Disabilties (Equal opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 can be taken into consideration. In this regard, this Court wants to emphasize the intention of legislature especially in the context of Section 47 of the Act, wherein, it is provided that if a person is worked in any organisation and who acquires a disability during his service and after acquiring disability, if the person is not suitable for the post, he was holding, he can be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits. The proviso to
Section 47(1) would further state that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation.
11. If we read this provision, the intention of the legislature would become obvious, as, even a person, who become disabled is not able to do any job in the organisation, where he worked before he acquiring any such disability, he can be kept in any supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation. When that being the position, the petitioner's candidature being the one eyed person can also be considered by the respondent Bank, provided, if the petitioner is ready and willing to take any other suitable job at the respondent Bank.
12. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) That the impugned order is sustainable and it needs no interference;
(ii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to make any application to the respondent Bank to seek any suitable post, even an inferior Class IV post, if she is advised to do so and once such an application is made by the petitioner, the respondent Bank is directed to consider the same sympathetically, taking in mind that the petitioner is a qualified person, as she has cleared the written as well as oral test conducted by the respondent Bank for the said recruitment and pass a reasoned order thereon.
No costs.
To
1) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, Corporate Centre,Tulsiani Chambers, I Floor, (West Wing) 212, Free, Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021.
2) The General Manager, State Bank of India, No.16, College Lane, Local Head Office, Nungambakkam, Chennai ? 600 006.
3) Assistant General Manager, Administrative Unit of State Bank of India, No.7-C McDonalds Road, Cantonment, Trichirappalli-1. .