Supreme Court Gives Relief To Person With Colour Blindness, Asks TANGEDCO To Appoint Him As Assistant Engineer

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) granted relief to a person with 'colour blindness' by directing the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) to appoint him as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at an appropriate grade of pay. 

The person had appealed to the Supreme Court after TANGDECO denied him appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the ground of his colour blindness. The Court observed that the alternate post of Junior Assistant offered by the Corporation to the appellant was inadequate as it was inconsistent with the appellant's qualifications.

"The offer is a mere palliative gesture which he justifiably rejected," the Court said about the alternate offer made by the TANGDECO.

Setting aside a judgment of the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of TANGDECO to terminate the appellant's appointment, the bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar ordered :

"TANGEDCO the respondent is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service as AE Electrical at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay from the day he was terminated from his service or his appointment was canceled and accommodate him in a suitable department where he can be given appropriate responsibilities. The appellant shall also be entitled to 50% of full arrears of salary and allowances and his service shall be reckoned from the original date of appointment with full continuity.”

The case revolved around a job application for the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the appellant. The appellant, who was initially considered qualified for the role, was subsequently found to be color blind during a medical examination. This raised concerns about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an engineer, which frequently involve working with color-coded power cables and wires.

As a result of these concerns, TANGEDCO rejected the appellant's candidature. The appellant challenged this decision under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Madras High Court initially ruled in his favor, directing TANGEDCO to offer him the position.

However, TANGEDCO appealed this decision, leading to a reconsideration by the division bench of the Madras High Court. The division bench's judgment highlighted the evolving doctrine of proportionality, indicating that TANGEDCO's decision had a reasonable basis, even by this modern standard.

The division bench emphasized the critical nature of quick and accurate decision-making for engineers, particularly in emergencies, when they must handle color-coded wires and cables. They reasoned that any impairment in such decision-making due to color blindness could render a person unfit for the position.

The division bench also stressed that the writ petitioner's case did not demonstrate any manifest arbitrariness in TANGEDCO's decision. It further cautioned against judicial interference in matters where judges might lack the requisite expertise, acknowledging that TANGEDCO had assembled a special committee with an expert member, whose unanimous decision was that the petitioner was unsuitable for the role.

Consequently, the division bench's judgment reversed the previous order, leading the appellant to seek redress from the Supreme Court.

For detailed report about the judgment, read here.

Case title: Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

For Appellant: AOR A. Velan

Click here to read the judgment