Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 09 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Surendra Kumar Gupta (represented by Advocate Tarun Kumar Das) vs. Coal India Limited & its subsidiary Eastern Coalfields Limited (respondent, represented by Advocate Manik Das).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Constitutional writ petition (WPA 6821 of 2022) challenging a pre‑employment medical fitness order dated 16 December 2021 that declared the petitioner “unfit for employment” for the post of Accountant/Cost Accountant (T & S Grade ‘A’) on the ground of colour blindness.
  • Key Allegations: petitioner argued that the Medical Attendance Rules (MAR) of CIL prescribe colour‑blindness testing only for Group‑A employees (directly involved in mining operations) and not for Group‑B office staff; therefore the colour‑blindness finding was ultra‑vires and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
  • Respondent’s Position: relied on the Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules, 1955, contending that all employees of a mining company must undergo colour‑blindness testing and that modern accounting work requires colour discrimination; also argued that the selection panel had expired on 12 November 2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra (1995) – colour blindness not an absolute bar unless it impedes duties.
  • Pradip Kumar Maji v. Coal India Ltd (2020) – colour‑blind candidates may be appointed to posts not requiring underground work.
  • Ashes Kumar Roy v. Coal India Ltd (2020) – colour‑blindness alone does not disqualify under CIL MAR.
  • Tarun Pan v. State of WB (2026) – inclusion in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
  • Ali Hossain Mandal v. WB Board of Primary Education (2024) – merit lists have limited validity.
  • Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) – recruitment criteria cannot be altered mid‑process.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The MAR distinguishes Group‑A (mining‑related) and Group‑B (office) employees; colour‑blindness testing is prescribed only for Group‑A.
  • The “T & S Gr. ‘A’” in the post title refers to pay grade, not the MAR’s Group‑A classification; thus the petitioner falls under Group‑B.
  • No job description or recruitment condition demonstrated that effective colour discrimination is essential for an Accountant/Cost Accountant.
  • The respondent’s reliance on a post‑selection clarification (3 August 2022) cannot retroactively impose a new disqualification.
  • The principle from Ghodmare requires a functional nexus between the medical condition and job duties; such nexus was absent.
  • The petitioner’s exclusion, while other candidates received appointments, indicated arbitrary treatment violating constitutional guarantees.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside the December 16 2021 letter declaring the petitioner unfit.
  • Directed the respondents to honour the petitioner’s provisional selection for the Accountant/Cost Accountant (T & S Grade ‘A’) post, treating colour blindness as non‑disqualifying.
  • Ordered issuance of the appointment letter within four weeks of the order.
  • Declared the writ petition allowed and disposed of.

Topics: Legal Dispute – Employment Eligibility, Medical Attendance Rules