MATHUR, J. - (1.) To question correctness of the judgment dated 14.1.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14252/2013 this intra -court appeal is preferred.
(2.) The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that the petitioner after qualifying Bachelors examination in Computer Application and Masters examination in Computer Application (Honors) with 75.22% and 72% respectively applied for the common written examination for recruitment of probationer/officers management trainees in public sector banks. On being qualified, he was placed in the list of selected incumbents and an order of appointment dated 23.3.2013 was issued appointing the petitioner as Probationary Officer with appellant respondent bank. The petitioner being undergoing a kidney transplantation at that time made a request to the respondent to extend the joining time. The joining time was extended by the bank, however, due to non -availability of the kidney donor, the transplantation was delayed. The mother of the petitioner would have donated kidney to the petitioner, but unfortunately the sister of the petitioner is also suffering from renal ailment and a kidney donated by mother of the petitioner was transplanted to her. The father of the petitioner is having a different blood group and, therefore, he is not an eligible donor. The only option as such available to the petitioner was to wait for some appropriate kidney donor. The petitioner by letter dated 30.10.2013 conveyed the respondent bank about the delay caused in getting the kidney transplanted, however, by placing reliance upon certain medical certificates issued by the competent medical practitioners he claimed for appointment being fit to carry out the normal banking duties. The respondent bank after receiving the communication dated 30.10.2013 alongwith three medical certificates, referred the petitioner to pre -recruitment medical examination. The medical practitioner, to whom the petitioner was referred, declared him unfit to join the duties and on basis of that the bank denied appointment.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a petition for writ, that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition, held that the word 'fitness' cannot be vaguely interpreted. Relevance has to be placed on the nature of the work and, therefore, it cannot be seen in the same terms if the nature of work is different i.e. the work which requires physical work, work which requires mental work and less physical work. Looking to the medical opinion given and the nature of duties, the petitioner is not unfit to discharge the work relating to a Probationary Officer in the bank though he is suffering from chronic ailment. Learned Single Bench, while accepting the petition also relied upon the 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol' to which India is signatory. In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the medical practitioner, to whom case of the petitioner was referred by the bank, opined that he is not fit to discharge the duties relating to the post of Probationary Officer, thus, no other interpretation could have been made by the writ court. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.;