Denying employment merely based on Hepatitis B infection violative of Article 14: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that excluding someone from public employment opportunities solely because he was Hepatitis B positive is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India [XXX v. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.]..A Division Bench of Justices Amit Rawal and KV Jayakumar held that such denial would also be against the constitutional values and principles laid down in MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitant v. M/s ZY & Ors. which held that rules regarding medical fitness are only intended to ensure that the person is capable of performing his job without posing any threat to any persons or property at the work place."Denial of public employment to a candidate/aspirant solely on the ground that the person was inflicted with hepatitis B virus or such infection is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated in its judgment. .The judgment was passed on an appeal moved by a man (appellant) who had secured second rank in a recruitment process for the post of Assistant General at Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT). He was denied appointment after a pre-employment medical examination found him unfit due to chronic Hepatitis B infection.He then moved the High Court challenging the denial of employment.Despite a 2021 Court directive to reassess his fitness through a medical board, subsequent evaluations provided conflicting opinions.A second medical board at the General Hospital, Ernakulam eventually stated that the petitioner was capable of performing all duties subject to standard safety protocol.Despite this, FACT issued a fresh rejection letter citing the infection as a reason for cancellation of appointment.Aggrieved, he filed filed another writ petition before the High Court but it was dismissed by a single-judge prompting the present appeal before the Division Bench. .The division bench examined the medical reports and found that it only recorded the appellant's Hepatitis B status but did not declare him unfit for the job. The Bench opined that the single-judge had failed to consider the findings of the final medical board which had specifically stated that the appellant could take up employment if he adhered to universal precautions."We are unable to fathom why employment was denied to the appellant/petitioner in the year 2024 on the reason that the appellant was inflicted with Hepatitis B virus in the year 2019. It is pertinent to note that such denial of employment was ordered ignoring the findings of the medical board, R1(c) of general hospital, wherein, it was categorically stated that the appellant could take up all activities including job", the Court added..The Court further observed that denying a job purely on the ground of Hepatitis B infection despite a clear medical report was 'illegal, unfair, and unjustifiable'.The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and directed FACT to issue the appointment letter to the appellant within one month..The appellant was represented by advocates Arun Chandran, Amrita Arun, Aswathy S Menon and Harimohan. FACT was represented by Standing Counsel Gopikrishnan Nambiar..[Read Judgment]