Hello, I am M.E from IIT in petroleum, and I had completed my B.E in mechanical from NIT. After I completed my graduation, I got a job in the government sector. However, at the time of joining, especially during the medical examination, I came to know that I was rejected because I cannot see from one eye. I have known about this condition since my childhood. I consulted numerous doctors, but they informed me that there is no hope for a cure. I never imagined that this issue would create a disaster in my life.
I pursued a master's degree, but the same problem occurred with my job prospects. I felt completely scattered and lost all hope of finding a job. Despite having the capability, I am unable to secure employment due to medical issues. I am unsure of what to do next. Please help.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I pursued a master's degree, but the same problem occurred with my job prospects. I felt completely scattered and lost all hope of finding a job. Despite having the capability, I am unable to secure employment due to medical issues. I am unsure of what to do next. Please help.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr./Ms.,
I don't know about your problem, but I am working in an eye hospital. Here we have very experienced eye consultants and seniors. Even foreigners come here for treatment. If possible, you can visit our eye hospital for a consultation. You may need to consider a corneal transplant surgery, and we can provide you with the necessary solutions.
Our address is:
Sankara Eye Hospital
Sathy Road
Sivanandapuram
Coimbatore - 641035
Phone: 0422-2666450, 4236789
Regards,
Lalitha
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't know about your problem, but I am working in an eye hospital. Here we have very experienced eye consultants and seniors. Even foreigners come here for treatment. If possible, you can visit our eye hospital for a consultation. You may need to consider a corneal transplant surgery, and we can provide you with the necessary solutions.
Our address is:
Sankara Eye Hospital
Sathy Road
Sivanandapuram
Coimbatore - 641035
Phone: 0422-2666450, 4236789
Regards,
Lalitha
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. 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. Have you tried for government jobs under the provisions of the above Act after following the procedure laid down under the said Act?
2. Under the provisions of the said Act, "person with disability" has been defined as a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. Have you obtained any certificate of disability under the said Act?
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2. Under the provisions of the said Act, "person with disability" has been defined as a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. Have you obtained any certificate of disability under the said Act?
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Looking into the facts and decision of the following decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, please file a writ petition before the High Court in consultation with a good High Court Advocate to get an appointment to the post on which you were selected but rejected on medical grounds:
"Shikha Malhotra vs State Bank Of India And Another 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 the 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 a Probationary Officer in the General Category. However, during the course of the 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 a 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 a 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 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) regarding 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 that could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments for the discharge of duties was that due to the increased use of computers, the petitioner may not be able to perform her duties. It has been pointed out that a 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 the 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 the 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 into 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, denial of the opportunity of appointment on such grounds is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is being denied the right of appointment for a 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. Union 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 that could be performed by 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 follows:
That apart, the writ petitioner, although a visually impaired lady had not asked for any special favor for selection to the post of Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner without asking for any favor 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 guaranteed by Article 16(1) is equality of 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, as a General Category candidate, she is entitled to be appointed as a 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 should be complied with within a period of two months from today."
In case of any difficulty, please revert back.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"Shikha Malhotra vs State Bank Of India And Another 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 the 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 a Probationary Officer in the General Category. However, during the course of the 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 a 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 a 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 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) regarding 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 that could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments for the discharge of duties was that due to the increased use of computers, the petitioner may not be able to perform her duties. It has been pointed out that a 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 the 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 the 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 into 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, denial of the opportunity of appointment on such grounds is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is being denied the right of appointment for a 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. Union 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 that could be performed by 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 follows:
That apart, the writ petitioner, although a visually impaired lady had not asked for any special favor for selection to the post of Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner without asking for any favor 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 guaranteed by Article 16(1) is equality of 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, as a General Category candidate, she is entitled to be appointed as a 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 should be complied with within a period of two months from today."
In case of any difficulty, please revert back.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friend,
Before delving into the legal protections available under various acts, you should first ensure whether the job requirements stipulate essentials such as clear eyesight and other physical standards. Any deficiency will result in the rejection of your case. Many tech and other jobs disqualify candidates with such defects because clear vision is an essential qualification for the job. If there is no such stipulation, then you should refer to the materials mentioned by our knowledgeable friends here.
All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Before delving into the legal protections available under various acts, you should first ensure whether the job requirements stipulate essentials such as clear eyesight and other physical standards. Any deficiency will result in the rejection of your case. Many tech and other jobs disqualify candidates with such defects because clear vision is an essential qualification for the job. If there is no such stipulation, then you should refer to the materials mentioned by our knowledgeable friends here.
All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When the aggrieved is going to challenge the rejection on account of medical unfitness due to one-eye blindness, even if the circular or advertisement is floated by the government barring such a 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. This is because even if the advertisement provides such a bar or condition, that condition will be unreasonable considering the nature of the post in question. In the following decision of the Allahabad High Court, the circulars of the Bank denying the opportunity of employment to one-eyed persons as clerks and officers violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue raised is more of a human rights issue than a disability issue. It is no longer open for the government/bank to contend that a person with one normal eye is medically unfit for 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 the opportunity of employment to one-eyed persons as clerks and officers violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue raised in the present case is more of a human rights issue than a disability issue.
We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment as a Probationary Officer. After the change in the approach to physically handicapped persons under the PWD Act, it is no longer open for the State Bank of India to contend that a person with one normal eye is medically unfit for the officer's job in the bank."
Let us not give our wisdom 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 disheartened to see advertisement conditions irrespective of their reasonability in the context of the post, we will be doing more harm than expected.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 the opportunity of employment to one-eyed persons as clerks and officers violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The issue raised in the present case is more of a human rights issue than a disability issue.
We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment as a Probationary Officer. After the change in the approach to physically handicapped persons under the PWD Act, it is no longer open for the State Bank of India to contend that a person with one normal eye is medically unfit for the officer's job in the bank."
Let us not give our wisdom 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 disheartened to see advertisement conditions irrespective of their reasonability in the context of the post, we will be doing more harm than expected.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks to everybody here who have shared their valuable comments. After I read the comments, ample of questions arise to me. As I told already, I was recruited in the PSU sector through campus recruitment and I was declared medically unfit. Again, I started preparing for government sectors with the hope that something will happen.
Now I have these questions: should I fill the form in the PH quota or general quota? And if I fill the form in any of these quotas, will I again be facing the same problem as Ms. Shikha had faced? Then, at that instance, what should I do? Should I directly file a case? Please tell me the complete procedure.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now I have these questions: should I fill the form in the PH quota or general quota? And if I fill the form in any of these quotas, will I again be facing the same problem as Ms. Shikha had faced? Then, at that instance, what should I do? Should I directly file a case? Please tell me the complete procedure.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Sir, I understand that seniors and experts have already expressed their views on the issue as mentioned above. In my opinion, much will depend on the facts of your case, particularly on facts like: (i) whether you have obtained the necessary certificate of disability under the provisions of the Act and rules as mentioned by me in my previous remarks; (ii) whether while submitting the application for the post, you clearly indicated that you are applying under the reserved quota meant for disabled persons; and (iii) whether in the department to which you had applied and were successful (but rejected due to disability as mentioned by you), there exists any post meant for disabled persons under the said category; and (iv) your position in the merit list published by the department on the basis of the written/competitive examination, if held.
2. I also suggest that you go through the reservation rules as adopted and applicable in the government 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2. I also suggest that you go through the reservation rules as adopted and applicable in the government 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is clear that PH posts are not many and the frequency of advertisements is low. If you have such a certificate, you can also apply for PH posts. Even if you have a PH certificate, you can apply for general quota posts as well. If the nature of the post does not require any specific qualifications or restrictions, then go ahead and apply.
Thanks
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend,
Don't get discouraged by the rejection on medical grounds. The world offers numerous opportunities; have faith in yourself and the Almighty. When one door closes, a hundred more open. It may not be common knowledge, but for the mining and petroleum industries, it is essential to be medically fit, and even color blindness is not permitted. Therefore, instead of wasting your time, consider exploring other opportunities. Having already obtained a postgraduate degree from IIT, you could pursue a career as a professor in any reputable engineering college or seek work as a consultant specializing in identifying geological resources using computer-based simulators. There are plenty of options available, so don't worry – you will find something even better than what you have lost.
All the best.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Don't get discouraged by the rejection on medical grounds. The world offers numerous opportunities; have faith in yourself and the Almighty. When one door closes, a hundred more open. It may not be common knowledge, but for the mining and petroleum industries, it is essential to be medically fit, and even color blindness is not permitted. Therefore, instead of wasting your time, consider exploring other opportunities. Having already obtained a postgraduate degree from IIT, you could pursue a career as a professor in any reputable engineering college or seek work as a consultant specializing in identifying geological resources using computer-based simulators. There are plenty of options available, so don't worry – you will find something even better than what you have lost.
All the best.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Lost Baby Information-ver y urgent.doc