Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Salai Gayathri (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.A.(MD) Nos. 941 to 953 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/02/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Salai Gayathri (Madras High Court)

The issue involved in these batch of Writ Appeals lies in a narrow compass viz., Is a person, who could only perform a regular function by wearing glasses would become disentitle to a post he can otherwise perform, by making an assessment qua the eyesight without wearing glasses?

Writ Appeals, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that it is not a case, the respondents cannot function by wearing glasses. The Notification does not specify the extent of visual standards, even otherwise, it is clear, as the respondents can perform by wearing glasses, their candidature cannot be rejected by making them to undergo a test without wearing glasses. The question is the suitability to the job and not otherwise. The classification sought to be made is certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If it is approved, a candidate, who is wearing specs would become disentitled for being considered to the post. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered. One has to see the eligibility and suitability of the candidate to the post, but such eligibility cannot be fixed on the basis of a candidate without specs, vis-a-vis, a candidate with specs. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as we are in respectful agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Government Order relied upon is outdated, opaque and contrary to the wisdoms expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is the insufficient/inadequate eyesight that makes a person to wear a glass. Once such glass is worn, then, that deficiency goes. Therefore, such person becomes eligible on par with the other person, who performs without glasses.

In such view of the matter, the classification sought to be made has got no rationale, as the job is sought to be undertaken as a whole.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of MADRAS HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031