Supreme Court directs TANGEDCO to Accommodate Colorblind Engineer: Mohamed Ibrahim vs. TANGEDCO (2023)

Date of the Judgment: October 16, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 914

Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can an employer deny a qualified candidate a job because of a mild color vision deficiency, even when the job doesn’t explicitly require perfect color vision? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a qualified engineer and the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO). The court examined the balance between an employer’s need for a fit workforce and the rights of individuals with disabilities to equal opportunities. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

In 2015, the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) issued a notification for the direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers (AE) in Electrical, Mechanical, and Civil disciplines. The appellant, Mohamed Ibrahim, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and was selected. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Superintendent’s Office, Karur in 2015 and he joined the services on 31.03.2017.

After joining, he was asked to produce a Physical Fitness Certificate. Upon medical examination, it was found that he had a color vision deficiency. This led to a series of medical examinations and reports, ultimately resulting in the cancellation of his selection and termination of his services on 14.05.2020.

The Regional Medical Board (RMB) at Thanjavur stated in its report dated 23.02.2018 that fitness could not be given since norms regarding colour vision were not provided by the employer (TNEB).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the appellant approached the Madras High Court, which directed TANGEDCO to decide the case based on the RMB report. Subsequently, TANGEDCO cancelled the appellant’s selection. The appellant then filed a writ petition, which was initially allowed by a single judge of the High Court, who directed the appointment of the appellant. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, stating that TANGEDCO had considered all relevant facts. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which aims to ensure equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The Court also examined the concept of “reasonable accommodation” as defined in the Act, which requires employers to make necessary modifications and adjustments to enable persons with disabilities to enjoy their rights equally with others.

Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines “person with disability” as:
“a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;”

Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines “person with benchmark disability” as:
“a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;”

Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines “reasonable accommodation” as:
“necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;..”

Section 3 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizes equality and non-discrimination, stating that:
“(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment. (3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability. (5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.”

The Court noted that while the Act provides for affirmative action for specific categories of disabilities, it also contains general provisions for non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The initial notification for the post did not specify any qualifying criteria regarding vision or color blindness.
• The appellant had a mild color vision deficiency, not complete color blindness, which should not hinder his ability to perform his duties.
• The Regional Medical Board (RMB) report stated that the appellant had defective color vision, but it did not specify whether this condition would affect his duties as there were no specified visual norms for color vision.
• The report of Aravind Eye Hospital and Post-Graduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Chennai, stated that he could identify red as orange and green and blue as lighter shades of those colours.
• The Sankara Nethralaya Hospital report concluded that he had mild color vision deficiency, and while he made some errors with colors close to yellow, he could perform most tasks.
• The appellant relied on the principle of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, arguing that TANGEDCO should have accommodated him in a suitable position.
• The appellant cited cases like Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra and Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura, where courts had directed the accommodation of individuals with color blindness.
• The appellant also relied upon Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India where the court held that despite colour vision deficiency, the applicant should be granted admission.
• The appellant argued that as an AE, he would be in a supervisory role, and the actual field work is done by Linemen, Technical Assistants, and Junior Engineers.
• The appellant highlighted that there are several branches where Assistant Engineers are accommodated, some of which do not require intense engagement with color.

TANGEDCO’s Arguments:

• TANGEDCO argued that while there were no specific color vision norms, the fitness of a candidate to discharge the functions of the post is a necessary criterion.
• They stated that an AE holds a responsible position involving visual inspection of machinery with specific color coding, and a lack of color awareness could pose a risk to the appellant and the public.
• TANGEDCO emphasized that the AE’s post is a technical position involving color-coded cables and gadgets, requiring awareness of colors.
• TANGEDCO relied on judgments of the Gujarat High Court (Tusharkumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat, Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State of Gujarat, and Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.) where the rejection of candidates with color blindness was upheld for technical posts.
• TANGEDCO also cited Sutton Et Al. v. United Air Lines, Inc., where the US Supreme Court held that a condition must substantially limit one or more major life activities to be considered a disability.
• TANGEDCO argued that the appellant had not joined its services and his color blindness was discovered before he joined, thus the provisions of the Disabilities Act would not apply.
• TANGEDCO stated that an AE cannot be utilized completely for office work for almost ten years or more, and the color defectiveness would impair the appellant’s ability to perform duties.
• TANGEDCO offered to accommodate the appellant as a Junior Assistant, but this was considered inadequate by the appellant.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the central issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether a person with mild color vision deficiency can be denied employment despite being qualified for the position.
2. Whether TANGEDCO was obligated to provide reasonable accommodation to the appellant under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court and directed TANGEDCO to appoint the appellant as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date of his original appointment. The Court also directed TANGEDCO to accommodate him in a suitable department where he could perform his responsibilities. The Court also ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of full arrears of salary and all allowances, and his service shall be reckoned from the original date of appointment, with full continuity.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Gujarat High Court judgments in Tusharkumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat, Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State of Gujarat and Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. were distinguished by the court, stating that those cases dealt with a different factual matrix, and the facts of the present case show that the appellant’s disability is mild.
• The US Supreme Court judgment in Sutton Et Al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. was distinguished as it was based on a different legal framework and factual context.
• The Supreme Court judgments in Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra [1995 (Supp 4) SCR 565], Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura [2017 (2) SCR 797] and Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India [[2022] 16 S.C.R 1094] were relied upon by the Court to emphasize that persons with color blindness should be accommodated in suitable positions.
• The Supreme Court judgments in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [[2016] 4 SCR 638], Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021 (13) SCR 823], and Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission [2021 (12) SCR 311] were relied upon by the Court to highlight the principles of non-discrimination, equality, and reasonable accommodation.
• The provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly Sections 2(s), 2(r), 2(y) and 3, were considered by the Court to understand the definitions of “person with disability”, “person with benchmark disability”, “reasonable accommodation”, and the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation. The Court emphasized that a mild color vision deficiency should not be a barrier to employment, especially when the employer has not specified any color vision norms. The Court also highlighted the importance of utilizing the talents of all individuals, including those with disabilities, and ensuring that they are not excluded from opportunities due to their condition. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need to move beyond traditional understandings of disability and to adopt a more inclusive approach.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles of equality and reasonable accommodation, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the appellant’s condition would make him unfit for the job. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant’s condition was mild and that TANGEDCO had the ability to accommodate him in a suitable position. The Court also rejected TANGEDCO’s offer to accommodate the appellant as a Junior Assistant, finding it inconsistent with his qualifications.

The decision was reached by applying the principles of equality and reasonable accommodation, as provided in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court emphasized that the employer had a duty to make necessary adjustments to ensure that the appellant could enjoy his rights equally with others.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The initial notification did not specify any color vision norms.
• The appellant’s condition was a mild color vision deficiency, not complete color blindness.
• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates reasonable accommodation.
• TANGEDCO had the ability to accommodate the appellant in a suitable position.
• The offer of a position as Junior Assistant was inconsistent with the appellant’s qualifications.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The need- nay, the entitlement of the appellant to some form of accommodation, in this case, is undeniable, because he is a graduate in electrical engineering.”

“Reasonable accommodation thus, is “appropriate modification and adjustments” that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with “disproportionate or undue burden”.”

“TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, 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 date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled, and accommodate him in a suitable department, where he can be given appropriate responsibilities.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically the principle of “reasonable accommodation.” The Court applied this principle to the facts of the case, holding that TANGEDCO had a duty to accommodate the appellant in a suitable position, considering his qualifications and the nature of his disability. The Court’s application of the law to the facts was based on its interpretation of the Act and its application of the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The potential implications for future cases are that employers will now have to be more proactive in accommodating individuals with disabilities, even if they do not fall within the traditional categories of disabilities as defined by the Act. The judgment also emphasizes that employers cannot deny employment based on minor conditions, especially when they have not specified any norms for such conditions.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather emphasized the existing principle of “reasonable accommodation” as provided in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court’s analysis focused on the interpretation and application of this principle to the facts of the case. The Court’s acceptance of the principle of reasonable accommodation was based on itsinterpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and its understanding of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.