Denial of public employment citing Hepatitis B infection is illegal, rules Kerala high court

Time of India

28-05-2025

Kochi: Denial of public employment to a job aspirant solely on the ground that the individual is afflicted with Hepatitis B virus or a similar infection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality, the Kerala high court has held.
A bench of Justices Amit Rawal and K V Jayakumar delivered the judgment in an appeal filed by a person afflicted with Hepatitis B virus, who had applied for the post of assistant general manager at Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT). The appellant had challenged the single bench order, which had dismissed his petition seeking appointment to the post. In the original petition challenging FACT's denial of appointment on medical grounds, the single bench had held that every employer requires healthy employees, not patients, and found no illegality in FACT's decision-making process.
However, in a previous round of litigation, where the appellant had challenged a communication from the deputy general manager, human resources department of FACT denying him the appointment, another single bench had held that no person can be denied public employment solely on the ground of suffering from diseases like Hepatitis B or HIV. The bench had also requested the central govt to formulate appropriate protocols for individuals infected with Hepatitis B.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
M.Tech. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning For Working Professionals.
BITS Pilani WILP
Apply Now
Undo
In its 2023 judgment, the bench had directed FACT to subject the petitioner to a further medical examination by a medical board, preferably constituted by a govt hospital or medical college. Based on the board's opinion, FACT was directed to reconsider the petitioner's appointment, subject to his qualifications and credentials. Following this, FACT again denied the appointment, citing the medical report, which allegedly declared the petitioner medically unfit.
This led the appellant to initiate another round of litigation. In Jan 2025, the single bench dismissed his petition based on the report, prompting the present appeal.
Upon perusing the medical report, the division bench observed that it clearly stated the appellant could participate in all activities and training, including the job, and was fit for work, provided universal precautions were followed. Accordingly, the court directed FACT to issue the appointment letter to the appellant within one month.