Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

If ailment is curable, you cant be denied job: HC

ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108

 

Dear All,
The following appeared in "Times of India", Mumbai Edition on May 09, 2009, page no. 03.
 
Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal
09820174108
 
If ailment’s curable, you can’t be denied job: HC
 
Mumbai: “A person who suffers from an ailment that medical treatment can cure, and is otherwise fit to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the post to which he applies for, cannot be denied the right to lead a productive life, to maintain himself and his family with dignity, and strive towards excellence,’’ said the Bombay high court on Friday. In a landmark ruling, the HC overturned a decision taken by the State Bank of India (SBI) in Mumbai and directed it to employ a man who, in 2004, had undergone a kidney transplant.
 
   Ranjit Rajak, a 32-year-old from Ghaziabad, UP, had taken SBI to court last year for having been refused a job on the grounds that he was “medically unfit’’. Though the bank had first found him suitable as a probation officer after interviewing him in January 2007, six months later, after his medical test, he was declared “ineligible’’ because of his kidney transplant.
 
   Rajak said it was not his first rejection; even the IDBI, another public sector bank, had denied him a job despite Apollo Hospital certifying him as “fit enough to perform tasks appropriate to the job’’ in January 2008.
 
   Ironically, the SBI, too, relied on a separate report from the same hospital that found him “unfit’’ as he would “require continuous care’’. The bank also relied on the 1979 guidelines that called for “special medical assessment while recruiting, to rule out kidney ailments, congenital heart disease, diabetes and rheumatic heart’’.
 
   Mihir Desai, Rajak’s lawyer, challenged the SBI decision saying it was not only discriminatory and violated the fundamental right to life and equality, but was also against a citizen’s right to public sector employment.
 
   A division bench of Justices Ferdino Rebello and R S Mohite expressed concern at the
discriminatory policy adopted by the public sector undertaking. The HC relied on several judgments from the US and other courts as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, which India had signed in 2007.
 
   The HC said  “the state as an employer does not have unfettered freedom as to who he chooses as his employee. If a person, who at one point suffered an ailment, is denied a job in the public sector, his chances in the private sector would be nil.
 
   “Do we, as a state, condemn all such citizens to be dependent on their families? Do we strip them off their dignity to live a full life? The theory of reasonable accommodation flows from the right to a life of dignity,’’ said the court. The judges dismissed the bank’s stand as “unreasonable’’, that it would have to bear the employee’s medical cost and that his work capability was irrelevant due to his medical condition. The court directed the bank to appoint Rajak in 60 days.
 

Total likes : 2 times

 
Reply   
 

Thanks

 
Reply   
 


Faculty

i do agree with Hemanth views...

 
Reply   
 

Hi Hemant - I really appreciate for taking this post for discussion.

Dear Members - Here, HC clearly has ruled out the case in favour of the candidate and my confusion is, does this mean SBI is going to follow this judgement in amending their rules for future recruits.

If you say 'YES', then why they are so rude in disqualifying my friend saying he is 'medically ineligible' for the job. He's been selected for a clerk post in SBI this January'09, however he didn't join because of his heart ailment (that is absolutely curable & mostly irrelevant to the job ) along with other selected candidates.

And SBI just doesnt care to communicate this to him - that he is rejected 'in writing'. He waited almost for 8 months to get some news from SBI in light of the recent court judgement.

Do you think he need to file a case in court, as the case is similar to ranjit rajak's case with SBI. If yes, which HC he needs to file (whether in mumbai ie., SBI's corporate office or his local station i.e., hyderabad).

Please advice & suggest. Thanks

 
Reply   
 
ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108

"madhav" :

 

The jobs under "SBI", is governed by the Banking Act, Rules and Guidelines. This is a Central Act and not a State Act.  The Central Act has "all india" jurisdiction  and technically speaking the State Act, has limited its jurisdiction only to its State.

 

The aggrieved candidate can approach any HC in India, for relief under any Central Act.
However, it is best to accumulate much case laws, before an approach can be made to the HC.  It is worth while remembering that SBI is a financial giant and nothing prohibits it to appeal in the higher courts, just for the sake of it.

 

SBI, is still governed by the old orthodox lethargic & frustrated class with much less emotions.  I'm not sure, BUT IF SBI has a tribunal set-up for this purpose, better approach it, before proceeding further.

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Civil Litigation Course     |    x