JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. I Choudhury, learned counsel representing the petitioner in both the cases. The respondent Airport Authority of India (AAI) and their officials are represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury. The two petitioners who are serving as Junior Assistant (Fire Service) challenge the order dated 30.11.2006, whereby in pursuant to a post appointment medical examination, the appointees were declared to be medically unfit and consequently their services were ordered to be terminated through the order dated 8.12.2006. They were recruited through a selection process after they responded to the advertisement dated 12.1.2003 for the 31 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service), to be deployed in the North East Region Airports. The eye vision stipulated in the advertisement was 6/6 vision of both eyes without glasses and it was specified that only those candidates who are found physically fit, will be entitled to appear in the written test/driving test/physical endurance test. 2. Following the selection process and provisional selection made by the Selection Committee, medical examination on 4.7.2003 of the selectees by a Civil Surgeon of the Govt. Hospital was ordered and after the petitioners were certified to be physically fit by the Civil Surgeon, the letter dated 16.7.2003 was issued deputing the selected persons for the basic training course at the Fire Service Training Center, Narayanpur, Kolkata. Successful completion of the fire training was made a precondition for appointment as Junior Assistant (Fire Service). 3. The 31 selected candidates successfully completed the fire service training but in the meantime some of the unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process by filing the WP(C) No. 4698, 5733 and 3790 of 2003. Simultaneously on complaint made by the non-selectees, a decision was taken by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on 5.4.2004 to subject the selected candidates to fresh medical examination at New Delhi. Consequently the aggrieved selectees also filed the WP(C) No. 2800, 2644, 2877 and 2903 of 2004 to challenge the AAI's decision for fresh medical examination at New Delhi. 4. All the above cases were heard analogously and before the writ court, the AAI took the stand that the recruitment of the selectees was made by strict adherence to the norms and only those who qualified in the respective written test and medical test, were sent for fire service training at Kolkata. 4. All the above cases were heard analogously and before the writ court, the AAI took the stand that the recruitment of the selectees was made by strict adherence to the norms and only those who qualified in the respective written test and medical test, were sent for fire service training at Kolkata. The learned Single Judge in his common judgment of 23.8.2004 observed that no illegality has been committed by the AAI in conducting the physical and written test. Moreover only because of inferior performance, the aggrieved petitioners were not selected. Therefore, noticing that fresh medical examination at New Delhi was ordered only because of complaints from the unsuccessful candidates, the Court quashed the notice dated 5.4.2004 and dismissed the WP(C) No. 4698, 5733 and 3790 of 2003. Consequently the WP(C) No. 2800, 2644, 2877 and 2903 of 2004 filed by the selected candidates were allowed. 5. The judgment of the writ court was challenged by the AAI by filing the Writ Appeal Nos. 417-420/2004 where the appellants challenged the quashing of the fresh medical examination ordered on 5.4.2004. The Division Bench in the judgment dated 29.11.2004 accepted the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the selected candidates that the private respondents may first be appointed before being subjected to further medical test. Consequently the Writ Appeals were disposed of with direction to the AAI to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates on condition that the appointees shall undergo further medical test, if so advised. 6. Thereafter appointment orders were issued on 5.1.2005 with the stipulation that the appointee will undergo another medical test in New Delhi at the earliest and if the appointees are found deficient in the medical requirement, their service would be terminated. With such stipulation the petitioners were appointed and they were deputed for medical re-examination at the Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital, New Delhi. The appointees were relieved from their duties to undergo medical re-examination at New Delhi on 3.3.2005. 7. The re-medical examination was conducted on March, 2005 at the R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi but the petitioners were allowed to continue their service. But after about 20 months of the scheduled medical tests, the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 was issued by the AAI, terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that that they were found to be medically unfit in the medical test conducted at the R.M.L. Hospital. 8. But after about 20 months of the scheduled medical tests, the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 was issued by the AAI, terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that that they were found to be medically unfit in the medical test conducted at the R.M.L. Hospital. 8. Assailing the termination decision, the petitioners contend that they were allowed to appear in the selection process only when they were found to be physically fit and after they were selected by the selection board, they were again subjected to medical examination by the Civil Surgeon in the Govt. Hospital and only thereafter they were deputed for Fire Service Training at Kolkata. Accordingly the appointees contend that the fitness declaration made earlier by competent Civil Surgeon should not have been reversed on the basis of doubtful medical report of the R.M.L. Hospital. 9. The veracity of the medical report of the R.M.L. Hospital is questioned by Advocate Mr. I Choudhury who submits that this report can't be relied upon since it was prepared 20 months after the petitioners were subjected to medical examination in March, 2005. The medical report(s) dated 3.11.2006 issued by the Addl. Medical Superintendent of the R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi shows that the petitioner Raj Kishore Buragohain was medically re-examined on 21.3.2005, whereas the other petitioner Dipankar Das was similarly re-examined on 23.3.2005. But strangely reports were not immediately prepared and were signed only on 3.11.2006 by the Addl. Medical Superintendent of the R.M.L. Hospital. The petitioners consequently argue that such belated report prepared 20 months after the examination of the petitioners can't be considered to be reliable and on this basis they challenge the veracity of the report. 10. Arguing that the medical report was prepared without jurisdiction by an incompetent authority, Advocate Mr. I Choudhury, refers to the letter dated 17.5.2005, addressed by the Chief Medical Officer, R.M.L. Hospital to the Airport Director, AAI to project that information was sought on whether the candidates were already examined by a Civil Surgeon as in that event, if re-examination is sought, such cases are required to be referred to the Medical Board instead of conducting the review examination at the level of the Civil Surgeon. 11. 11. The petitioners also project that they are efficiently rendering service since they were appointed in January, 2005 and they were never found deficient in discharging their task as Fire Assistants in the Airport and accordingly it is argued that the medical report of the R.M.L. Hospital is unreliable, since even in a recent examination by a Civil Surgeon in December, 2013 (before deputing the petitioners for a mandatory in-service training), their vision in both eyes were found to be of the optimum standard i.e. 6/6 in both eyes. 12. For the respondents, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the fresh medical examination was made a pre-condition for the petitioners' appointment in the appointment letter itself and accordingly the senior counsel argues that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the medical examination at the R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi. 13. The senior lawyer for the AAI refers to the Division Bench order dated 29.11.2004 to project that the lawyer for the selectees himself suggested for further medical test of the successful candidates after they are appointed and accordingly it is argued that the medical test on the basis of which the petitioners were selected and were appointed can't now be relied upon by the petitioners to assail the finding of the Medical Report given on 3.11.2006 by the New Delhi Hospital. 14. Referring to the petitioners signature on the medical report, the Senior Counsel argues that the petitioners were well aware of the findings of the report and accordingly it is argued that since they failed to meet the required vision standard of both eyes, their continuation in service, where perfect vision is essential, would hamper the operational efficiency of the AAI. 15. Before examining the merit of the rival contention on the termination order, it may be useful to refer to the AAI's stand on the selection process in the previous proceeding. The AAI's lawyer in the earlier round had fully supported the procedure for recruitment and contended that only those who qualified in the written test and the medical test were deputed for the fire training to Kolkata. In fact, the learned Single Judge in the common judgment of 23.8.2004 had categorically declared that no illegality has been committed by the AAI in conducting the physical test and the written test. In fact, the learned Single Judge in the common judgment of 23.8.2004 had categorically declared that no illegality has been committed by the AAI in conducting the physical test and the written test. Therefore since fresh medical examination was ordered by the AAI only because of the complaint of the unsuccessful candidate, as was earlier indicated by the Court, the fresh medical examination ordered on 5.4.2004 can't in my view be attributed to any deficiency in the selection process. 16. However since further medical test of the selected candidates was permitted to be made by the Division Bench and this was made a precondition in the appointment order of 5.1.2005, it would now be appropriate to examine whether the medical report given by the R.M.L. Hospital can be the acceptable basis for terminating the service of the two petitioners. 17. The first striking aspect of the medical report of the R.M.L. Hospital is the 20 month gap between the date of examination and the date of the report. Normally a report on the medical examination is prepared immediately after the examination and a 20 months' gap between the date of examination and the date of report would normally raise suspicion on the veracity of the report. After such long gap, the certifying authority will not be in the best position to certify the medical condition of a person examined 20 months earlier and although the delay may not be entirely fatal, it does have a bearing on authenticity of the medical report. 18. Since the Division Bench permitted further medical test, it was certainly open for the AAI to subject the appointees to further medical test. But nevertheless one can't ignore that the selections and appointments were made after the candidates were found to have satisfied the physical and vision standard for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). Moreover a pre-training medical examination carried out by a Civil Surgeon in the Govt. Hospital certified the fitness of the petitioners, as can be noted from the letter dated 9.6.2003. 19. Significantly the R.M.L. Hospital in their letter dated 17.5.2005 was of the view that in case of re-examination of candidates, who were earlier examined by Civil Surgeon, the norms require reference of such cases for examination by a Medical Board instead of at the Civil Surgeon level. 19. Significantly the R.M.L. Hospital in their letter dated 17.5.2005 was of the view that in case of re-examination of candidates, who were earlier examined by Civil Surgeon, the norms require reference of such cases for examination by a Medical Board instead of at the Civil Surgeon level. Therefore it is legitimate to question why the medical re-examination was not done by a Medical Board and the termination was ordered only on the basis of re-examination at the level of Civil Surgeon in the Govt. Hospital. 20. The petitioners herein were subjected to re-examination on 21.3.2005 and 23.3.2005 respectively and yet their medical reports were certified 20 months later on 3.11.2006. On this delay Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel refers to the multiple communications by the AAI to the R.M.L. Hospital for dispatching the medical reports of two of the left out candidates, to argue that it is not the fault of the AAI that the termination decision was belatedly taken in November, 2006. But this argument should not be considered in isolation of the view of the R.M.L. Hospital to the effect that a Medical Board should have undertaken the re-examination exercise. This perhaps was the reason why they had not prepared the report immediately after the re-examination was made in March, 2005. But when re-examination should be done by a Medical Board as was understood by the R.M.L. Hospital, it would be unfair in my view to allow termination of the service of the petitioners who were lawfully recruited after they earlier satisfied the Civil Surgeon that they possess the required medical standard. Moreover the petitioners didn't have any role in the delayed medical report of the R.M.L. Hospital. 21. As earlier stated altogether 31 persons were appointed and all of them had qualified on merit through the same selection process. The respondents had categorically asserted that evaluation was made objectively as per norm and only the deserving persons were recommended for appointment. If such is the process through which the petitioners were appointed, it must be accepted that the petitioners satisfied the exacting physical standards and therefore deserve to continue in service. In fact, 29 of the petitioners colleagues recruited through the same process are serving undisturbed in the AAI if 2 of the same flock are terminated it will be discriminatory. If such is the process through which the petitioners were appointed, it must be accepted that the petitioners satisfied the exacting physical standards and therefore deserve to continue in service. In fact, 29 of the petitioners colleagues recruited through the same process are serving undisturbed in the AAI if 2 of the same flock are terminated it will be discriminatory. Therefore if their service is to be disturbed by reversing the earlier finding of the Civil Surgeon, it can only be done through a competent Medical Board. 22. That apart, the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 shows that the service of the petitioners were ordered to be terminated under Clause 11(2)(c) of the AAI (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the AAI Regulation"). Under this Clause, termination on the ground that the employee is found unfit for further service is permitted. In this case the respondents project that on the date of termination, the petitioners were only probationers and that they were appointed because of the Division Bench order as per consent of the parties. Accordingly termination of the petitioners is sought to be justified. But the petitioners were certified fit by the Civil Surgeon before recruitment and also recently in December, 2013, while they were in service. Therefore, although the AAI Regulation empowers the employer to terminate service on medical ground under Clause 11(2)(c), but this power can't be exercised unreasonably and without clear justification. 23. In a somewhat similar case of defective and sub-normal eye sight of bus drivers under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the Supreme Court in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation reported in (1991) 1 SCC 731 held that service conditions of bus drivers, who are exposed to occupational hazards, must provide for adequate safeguards. Consequently a scheme for alternative job for drivers whose vision is affected - was ordered to be framed to ensure that the drivers and their families are not subjected to economic deprivation, merely because they are unable to discharge the job for which they were recruited. Here the Supreme Court formulated a scheme for offering alternate appointment as per the capability of the employee or to compensate him for loss of job. Here the Supreme Court formulated a scheme for offering alternate appointment as per the capability of the employee or to compensate him for loss of job. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 10 SCC 570 , which again was a case of bus drivers turning blind in course of employment. Here also the Apex Court directed alternative employment for the person developing defective eye sight for which he could not continue as driver. While the Supreme Court can certainly formulate a scheme for rehabilitation of visually impaired drivers, it may not be appropriate for a High Court to give similar direction as the power under Article 142 vests exclusively on the Supreme Court. 24. But on the above aspect, a High Court can usefully refer to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Disability Act"). In this Act, under Section 2(i) "disability" includes blindness or low vision. Section 47 of the Disability Act prohibits the Government from discharging an employee who acquires disability during his service tenure and under the proviso to Section 47, the employer is required to shift the employee who is found unsuitable to render service in his current post, to some other post with same service benefit. If shifting is not possible, the concerned employee is required to be kept in a supernumerary post until he attains the age of superannuation. If this be the level of protection expected by law for a disabled Government Employee, even if it is assumed that the petitioners have acquired some deficiency in the vision standards during the course of their employment, the AAI can't be permitted to simply render them jobless. 25. There is another aspect on which the Court's comment is found necessary. In the present case, the petitioners have served for about 8 years and the respondents never said that the petitioners have been found deficient in discharging their duties as Junior Assistant (Fire Service). This shows that petitioners' continuance is not detrimental in any way to the level of service expected of them. Of-course this observation is subject to the rider that if any impediment in rendering of service is noticed, subject to competent medical evaluation, appropriate decision can be taken by the employer. This shows that petitioners' continuance is not detrimental in any way to the level of service expected of them. Of-course this observation is subject to the rider that if any impediment in rendering of service is noticed, subject to competent medical evaluation, appropriate decision can be taken by the employer. But such decision has to conform to the requirement of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act and an employee who acquires disability can't simply be discharged. For such eventuality, the employer has the obligation to re-deploy or at least to ensure that employee is adequately protected from being rendered income less. In view of the above discussion, I find enough force in the petitioners' challenge to the termination order dated 30.11.2006 and consequently both cases are allowed by quashing the termination order. The cases are disposed of by leaving the parties to bear their own cost.