Kerala High Court Quashes FACT's Rejection of Hepatitis B Patient | Denial of Employment Solely on Account of Disease Is Illegal and Unjustifiable | Directs Appointment Within One Month
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar quashed the denial of employment to a candidate who was previously found unfit on medical grounds due to Hepatitis B infection. The Court held that such a rejection solely based on a medical diagnosis without considering the individual’s capacity to discharge job duties was unjustified. It directed the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) to issue the appointment letter within one month, noting that the candidate was medically fit to work, subject to standard precautions. The Bench also noted that the approach of FACT in rejecting the candidate based on outdated or generic medical evaluations, despite a more recent favourable assessment, amounted to discrimination. The judgment also stressed the necessity of adopting a protocol for individuals with Hepatitis B, similar to those for HIV-positive persons, to ensure equal treatment in public employment. Consequently, the earlier judgment of the learned Single Bench, which upheld the rejection, was set aside.
The case arose out of a writ appeal filed by the petitioner who had applied for the post of Assistant General in the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT). The FACT had issued a notification (Ext.P1) requiring candidates to have a graduate degree with at least 50% marks and proficiency in office automation and computer knowledge. The appellant submitted his application online (Ext.P2) and was included in the rank list (Ext.P6) published on 23.09.2019, where he was placed at Rank No. 2.
Subsequently, he underwent a medical examination as part of the pre-employment process and was found medically unfit due to Chronic Hepatitis B infection. Disputing this decision, he filed W.P.(C) No. 12311 of 2021. The Single Bench, in a judgment dated 11.08.2021, directed FACT to constitute a medical board under Clause 11 of its Pre-Employment Medical Examination Procedure.
In compliance, a medical board of three members evaluated the appellant and issued a report (Ext.R1(b)) confirming that he had Chronic Hepatitis B infection. The board noted a significant increase in the viral load since 2019 and observed potential liver-related complications. The report stated, "Chronic Hepatitis B infection is confirmed for this candidate, which is a communicable disease through blood and body fluids, and also a progressive pathological condition."
Dissatisfied with the second rejection, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 29693 of 2022. On 25.08.2023, the High Court set aside the earlier medical report and directed another examination by a medical board preferably from a government medical college or hospital. Accordingly, a new board consisting of two doctors from General Hospital, Ernakulam, evaluated the appellant and issued a fresh report (Ext.R1(c)).
This latest report diagnosed Chronic Hepatitis B infection but found no evidence of cirrhosis. It noted, "HBV infection alone should not disqualify infected person from the practice or study of surgery, dentistry, medicine or allied health field - CDC." The report further stated, "So the present condition he is able to join for work and he has to practice universal precautions in work."
Despite the favourable findings, FACT held its earlier stance and issued Ext.P27 communication reaffirming the cancellation of the job offer. FACT argued that the infection posed a potential health risk to co-workers, especially in a chemical and fertilizer manufacturing environment. The rejection cited the communicable nature of the disease, the need for universal precautions, and future health risks as justification.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present writ appeal (WA No. 406 of 2025) challenging the judgment dated 27.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 35315 of 2024 by the Single Bench that had dismissed his plea.
The Division Bench considered the contentions of both sides. It recorded that the earlier Single Bench had failed to appreciate the essence of the court’s own directions in Ext.P23 and the conclusions of the latest medical evaluation.
The Bench noted, "It is made clear that a person cannot be denied opportunity in public employment solely on the ground that he is/was suffering from Hepatitis B infection." Referring to Ext.R1(c), the Bench stated, "The appellant is able to join for work, but has to practice universal precautions in work."
The Court held that the findings in Ext.R1(c) showed no incapacity to perform job duties. "We do not find any incapacity for the appellant to take up the job in the FACT," the Bench observed. It further stated that the rejection based on this report was irrational and arbitrary.
Quoting the Bombay High Court judgment in MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitant v. M/s ZY and Others, the Bench observed, "No person can be deprived of his right to livelihood except according to procedure established by law. Obviously, such procedure established by law has to be just, fair and reasonable."
The Division Bench stated that "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 Bench criticized the approach of FACT, stating, "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 also recorded that the company ignored the vital fact that the medical board from a government hospital had declared the appellant fit, stating that he could participate in all job activities provided universal precautions were followed.
The Court stated the broader implications, suggesting, "Government of India look into and decide upon apposite Protocols with respect to 'Hepatitis B' infected persons also," akin to those established for HIV-positive individuals.
The High Court Division Bench issued the following directions:
"The impugned judgment of the learned Single Bench is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. Ext.P27 order is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to issue appointment letter to the appellant/petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment."
The Court further held that "denial of employment to the appellant, job aspirant solely on the reason that, once he was inflicted with Hepatitis B virus is illegal, unfair and unjustifiable."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Arun Chandran, Amrita Arun, Aswathy S. Menon, Harimohan
For the Respondents: Sri Jai Mohan, Sri T. C. Krishna, DSGI In Charge; Adv. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
Case Title: XXX v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: WA No. 406 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amit Rawal, Justice K. V. Jayakumar
[Read/Download order]
