ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Non-Executive Junior Mining Engineer Trainee pursuant to the Employment Notification No.01/2015. Eight hundred and eleven (811) posts were notified for all categories of candidates, out of it, ten (10) posts were made available for BC-A community candidates. The petitioner was selected and his name was shown at Sl.No.510 in the merit list. When no appointment orders were issued, the petitioner along with eight others filed W.P.No.2303 of 2016 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 09.03.2016 directing the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners therein. After disposal of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner was issued with a Provisional Offer of Appointment Order on 24.05.2016, he was asked to submit original certificates and undergo initial medical examination at Main Hospital, Kothagudem. The petitioner submitted all the original certificates and had undergone medical examination. It appears that the petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground that he was a diabetic patient. But, the petitioner states that the various reports of different Diagnostic centres indicated that he was not a diabetic patient and accordingly, he submitted a representation on 19.01.2017 for re- conducting medical examination. When no action was taken thereon, he filed the present Writ Petition. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that notification was issued for eight hundred and eleven (811) identified vacancies for the post of Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (JMET) (External) and written test was conducted on 10.05.2015. Out of it, six hundred and forty seven (647) provisional appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates, in which, sixteen (16) candidates remained absent, two (02) candidates expressed their unwillingness to join and two (02) candidates were declared as unfit. However, there are no local candidates for filling up of twenty (20) vacancies. After disposal of Writ Petition No.2303 of 2016 filed by eight (08) non-local candidates including the petitioner, twenty (20) provisional orders of appointment were issued to the selected candidates including the petitioner. But, in the initial medical examination, the petitioner was declared as unfit for duty, as he was suffering from diabetes, as such he was not appointed. After disposal of Writ Petition No.2303 of 2016 filed by eight (08) non-local candidates including the petitioner, twenty (20) provisional orders of appointment were issued to the selected candidates including the petitioner. But, in the initial medical examination, the petitioner was declared as unfit for duty, as he was suffering from diabetes, as such he was not appointed. The petitioner was asked to attend for verification of original certificates on 08.06.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner attended for the same. After verification of original certificates, he was directed to the Main Hospital at Kothagudem for initial medical examination, by letter, dated 08.06.2016. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Administration), Main Hospital, Kothagudem, vide his letter, dated 09.06.2016, declared the petitioner as unfit for duty, as he was suffering from diabetes and petitioner was informed accordingly. 4. In the light of above averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the counter-affidavit, the only point that survives for consideration in this writ petition is whether a direction can be issued to the respondents to take the petitioner into service. 5. Notification No.01 of 2015 was issued for various posts including the post of Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (JMET) (MEN ONLY). In the said notification, nowhere it was indicated that the candidates suffering from diabetes cannot apply. The mode of selection was stated to be by way of written test. As stated above, the petitioner applied was selected and when he was subjected to medical examination, the Medical Officer opined that he is unfit for duty. As per the medical report, FBS was 122, whereas PLBS was 207. The petitioner independently filed Diagnostic reports of several diagnostic centres, which showed that the petitioners sugar levels were within the normal range. The test report of Vimta Lab showed that the petitioner was having HbA1c of 4.7% and in case of non-diabetes, it would be less than 5.6%. The report of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, also showed that the petitioners sugar levels were within the prescribed parameters of non-diabetes. 6. Be that as it may, whether a diabetic is totally prohibited from taking up the employment of Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (External) in T & S Grade-C has to be considered. 7. The report of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, also showed that the petitioners sugar levels were within the prescribed parameters of non-diabetes. 6. Be that as it may, whether a diabetic is totally prohibited from taking up the employment of Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (External) in T & S Grade-C has to be considered. 7. As per the position taken by the American Diabetes Association in 1984, any person with diabetes, whether insulin (treated) or non- insulin (treated), should be eligible for any employment, for which he/she is otherwise qualified. They prepared a document providing for guidelines for evaluating individuals with diabetes for employment. It was stated that the blanket bans are medically inappropriate and ignore many advancements in diabetes management that range from the types of medications used to the tools used to administer them and to monitor blood glucose levels. It was also stated that employment decisions should not be based on generalizations or stereotypes regarding the effects of diabetes. The impact of diabetes and its management varies widely among individuals and hence, the proper assessment of individual candidates for employment or current employees may take this variability into account. 8. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, the Act) was enacted in order to provide right, equality, life with dignity, respect of equity for his or her integrity etc., equally with others and managing the duties and responsibilities of appropriate Government in that regard. 9. Section 2 (s) of the Act defines persons with disability as a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others. The specified disability was shown in the schedule to the said enactment. The diabetes is not one of the disabilities. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Union of India v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and another, W.P.No.14760 of 2015. In the said case, the eligibility of a person for Group D post in Southern Railway was considered. A candidate, who was disqualified and declared as unfit for employment in Aye Grade-II, filed O.A.No.552 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and when the said application was allowed the matter was taken before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. A candidate, who was disqualified and declared as unfit for employment in Aye Grade-II, filed O.A.No.552 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and when the said application was allowed the matter was taken before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In that connection, when a defence was taken that when a person is a chronic diabetic at the age of 40 years, the ability to work will deteriorate, it was observed as follows: “12. In the affidavit of the Chief Physician, he has chosen to highlight the nature of the disease, as per Harrisons Principles of Internal Medicines and API Text Book of Medicine. It is further stated in the affidavit that the 2nd respondent was found to have elevated HbA1c and that HbA1c is recognized as a reliable marker for the over all Glucose exposure and its direct consequence and excessive rate of Glysation. 13. We must confess that we are not medical experts to contradict or confront the opinion of the Chief Physician. But nevertheless we must point out at least what is in public domain. According to the information furnished in the blog of global diabetes community with the domain name diabetes.co.uk, the term HbA1c refers to glycated haemoglobin. By measuring glycated haemoglobin, clinicians are able to get an over all picture of what out average blood sugar levels have been, over a period of weeks. 14. The World Health Organization has published several guidelines for the diagnosis of diabetes since 1965. Both diagnosis and classification were reviewed in 1999 and were published. The potential utility of HbA1c in diabetes care is first mentioned in the 1985 World Health Organization report. As more information relevant to the diagnosis of diabetes became available, World Health Organization, with the International Diabetic Federation, convened a joint expert meeting in 2005 to review and update the recommendations on diagnosis only. After consideration of the date available and the recommendations made at that time by other international and global organizations, the 2005 consultation made the following recommendations: 1. The previous (1999) World Health Organization diagnostic criteria should not be chanted. 2. The diagnostic cut-point for Impaired Fasting Glycemia (6.1 mmoI/I; 110 mg/dl) should not be changed. 3. HbA1c should not be adopted as a diagnostic test, as the challenges of measurement accuracy outweighed the convenience of its use. The previous (1999) World Health Organization diagnostic criteria should not be chanted. 2. The diagnostic cut-point for Impaired Fasting Glycemia (6.1 mmoI/I; 110 mg/dl) should not be changed. 3. HbA1c should not be adopted as a diagnostic test, as the challenges of measurement accuracy outweighed the convenience of its use. In March 2009, World Health Organisation convened a consultation in order to update the 1999 and 2006 reports with the place of HbA1c in diagnosing diabetes, based on available evidence. The main question to be answered for the update agreed upon by the expert group was How does HbA1c perform in the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes based on the detection and prediction of microvascular complications? The recommendation was drafted by the expert group following the GRADE methodology and the process outlined in the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. The strength of the recommendation was based on the quality of evidence and feasibility and resource implications for low and middle-income countries. The Recommendations were that HbA1c can be used as a diagnostic test for diabetes provided that stringent quality assurance tests are in place and assays are standardised to criteria aligned to the international reference values, and there are no conditions present which preclude its accurate measurement. The 2011 World Health Organization and illness-related factors The most common important factors worldwide affecting HbA1c levels are haemoglobin apathies (depending on the assay employed), certain anaemia, and disorders associated with accelerated red cell turnover such as malaria. The utility and convenience of HbA1c compared with measures of plasma glucose for the diagnosis of diabetes needs to be balanced against the fact that it is unavailable in many countries, despite being a recognized valuable tool in diabetes management. In addition the HbA1c assay is not currently well enough standardized in many countries for its use to be recommended universally at this time. However, there will be countries where optimal circumstances already exist for its use. 15. It has nowhere been contended by the Railway Administration, that complications have arisen as a result of the patients diabetes. It is only contended that her condition is likely to give rise to certain complications. However, in the present case, none of the complications as averred by the petitioner (end-stage renal disease, non-traumatic lower amputations, adult blindness etc.) have manifested in the patient, thereby rendering her unfit for service. It is only contended that her condition is likely to give rise to certain complications. However, in the present case, none of the complications as averred by the petitioner (end-stage renal disease, non-traumatic lower amputations, adult blindness etc.) have manifested in the patient, thereby rendering her unfit for service. Additionally, Dr.A.Kalanidhi has submitted by means of an affidavit that the second respondent HbA1c levels are indicative of the fact that over the past five years, the patients beta cells have undergone sufficient degree of damage and that, in effect, the risk of complications arising are higher. This contention cannot be accepted in the present case as a mere speculation of complications cannot be made a reasonable ground to deny the second respondent employment, as the disease is, at this stage, manageable with regular treatment such hat the status quo is maintained. This speculation, therefore has merely to be stated to be rejected. 10. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, following Division Bench Judgment of the same Court in Union of India v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, (2013) 6 MLJ 617 ) held that employment cannot be denied merely on speculations that might happen in future because of health condition and categorically rejected the contention that the diabetic patient cannot be employed. 11. In the instant case also, the respondents tried to justify their action on the ground that the petitioner should be free from any progressive illness, which may affect his performance in future and ultimately may result in pre-mature retirement on account of medical grounds. It was stated that Diabetes, being a progressive disease is likely lead to secondary complications on account of involvement of various organs such as Eyes, Kidneys, Heart and Nervous System. Though the petitioner submitted a representation on 09.02.2017 for re-medical examination to find out his medical fitness, his case was not considered in view of above reasons. The very declaration issued by the Medical Officer in the instant case is doubtful in view of contra evidence produced by the petitioner from various Diagnostic laboratories. Even if the petitioner is a diabetes patient, he cannot be denied employment on that ground. 12. The very declaration issued by the Medical Officer in the instant case is doubtful in view of contra evidence produced by the petitioner from various Diagnostic laboratories. Even if the petitioner is a diabetes patient, he cannot be denied employment on that ground. 12. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue order of appointment to the petitioner, within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as there is no allegation of disqualification of the petitioner on any other ground, except on the ground that he was a diabetes patient. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.