MOHAMED IBRAHIM versus THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 16-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 924 : 2023 INSC 914
924
CASE DETAILS
MOHAMED IBRAHIM
v.
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6785 of 2023)
OCTOBER 16, 2023.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment 
of the High Court, which dismissed his petition, claiming arbitrariness in 
the declining of his candidature as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the 
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO 
Corporation or employer), on the ground that he was colour blind.
Service Law – Disability – Colour blindness – After the medical 
examination, the appellant was informed that he had colour defective 
vision (colour blindness) – Corporation cancelled appellant’s selection 
– Appellant’s services were terminated – Propriety:
Held: TANGEDCO, has nowhere indicated in express terms, that 
colour vision deﬁ ciency, in any form or degree, is a bar to employment 
for AE – The facts of the case demonstrate that the appellant is ﬁ t, in all 
senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he applied 
and was selected for – Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” 
as he is colour blind – At the same time, he does not ﬁ t the category of 
PWD under the the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The 
objective material on the record shows that the colour vision impairment 
is mild – Yet, TANGEDCO’s concerns cannot be characterised as 
unreasonable – However, TANGEDCO is under an obligation to work 
under the framework of “reasonable accommodation”, which is deﬁ ned 
by Section 2 (y) of the 2016 Act – Reasonable accommodation thus, 
is “appropriate modiﬁ cation and adjustments” that should be taken 
925
by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed 
with “disproportionate or undue burden” – TANGEDCO- the employer 
expresses its willingness to accommodate the appellant – However, 
the post oﬀ ered, i.e., Junior Assistant by the employer, is inconsistent 
with the appellant’s qualiﬁ cation which cannot be oﬀ ered to him – The 
hierarchy of posts in the corporation indicates that the primary inspection 
responsibilities of technical nature are upon Junior Engineers, who 
oversee the work of Technical Assistants, and that of Linemen – It is 
evident that the AE works at a position of overseeing supervisory work 
of Junior Engineers – This could involve, at the ﬁ eld stage, satisfaction 
after visual inspection – Suﬃ  cient safeguards (whenever the appellant’s 
services in that regard are absolutely essential, and he is deployed on 
some occasions) can be taken, to ensure that he is accompanied by those 
without any colour vision deﬁ ciencies or impairments – Therefore, 
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. [Paras 
20, 25, 26, 27, 28]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638; Ravinder Kumar 
Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021] 13 SCR 823; Vikash Kumar v. Union 
Public Service Commission [2021]12 SCR 311 – relied on.
Tusharkumar Karsanbhai Vinzuda v. State of Gujarat SCA 
No.8611/2020, decided on 08.02.2022; Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State 
of Gujarat 12 SCA 2916/2022, decided on 11.02.2022; Tushar Karsanbhai 
Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. C/LPA 331/2022, decided on 
23.09.2022; Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra 
[1995] (Supp 4) SCR 565; Pranay Kumar Poder v. State of Tripura [2017] 
2 SCR 797; Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India [2022] 
16 SCR 1094 – referred to.
Sutton Et Al. v. United Air Lines, Inc 527 US 471 (1999) – referred to.
MOHAMED IBRAHIM v. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING 
DIRECTOR & ORS.
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6785 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2021 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in WAMD No.1506 of 2021.
Appearances:
A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Mritunjay Pathak, Aditya Raj Singh, 
Mehmood Umar Faruqui, TS Nanda Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Ms. Preethi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.