Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has held that denial of public employment solely due to Hepatitis B infection is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI), as it amounts to unjust discrimination. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of X v. FACT and Others, (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. FACT and Others (2025) Case? 

• The appellant successfully secured Rank 2 in the competitive selection process for the position of Assistant General at Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT). 
• Following his selection, the appellant was required to undergo a mandatory pre-employment medical examination as per standard organizational procedure. 
• The medical officer who conducted the examination declared the appellant medically unfit for the position, leading to the rejection of his candidature. 
• Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the rejection based on medical grounds. 
• The court initially directed FACT to constitute a Medical Board under Clause 11 of the FACT Pre-Employment Medical Examination Procedure to re-examine the appellant. 
• The three-member Medical Board examined the appellant and found him afflicted with Chronic Hepatitis B infection, noting it as communicable through blood and bodily fluids. 
• Dissatisfied with this report, the appellant filed another writ petition challenging the Medical Board's findings and recommendations. 
• The court then directed a fresh medical examination by a new Medical Board constituted by a Government Hospital or Government Medical College. 
• The newly constituted two-member Board again declared the appellant medically unfit, though acknowledging he could work with universal precautions. 
• The Single Judge ruled that the court could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to substitute the expert medical committee's opinion, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Division Bench.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench conducted a comprehensive review of all medical reports and legal precedents presented during the proceedings. 
• The court observed that none of the medical reports demonstrated that the appellant lacked the requisite capacity or ability to perform the duties associated with the position. 
• The Division Bench noted that FACT had failed to properly appreciate and interpret the medical reports when issuing the rejection letter to the appellant. 
• The court emphasized that denial of public employment based solely on Hepatitis B infection constitutes a clear violation of Article 14 of the COI. 
• The Division Bench recognized that such discrimination amounts to an illegal, unfair, and unjustifiable offence against constitutional principles of equality. 
• The court determined that the Single Judge had committed an error in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in the present matter. 
• The Division Bench concluded that public employers cannot reject candidates merely on grounds of Hepatitis B infection without establishing legitimate concerns related to job performance capacity. 

Does Denial of Employment for Hepatitis B Violate Article 14 of the Constitution? 

• Denial of public employment to a candidate solely on the ground of Hepatitis B infection constitutes a direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. 
• Such denial amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against individuals based on their medical condition, creating an arbitrary classification that has no rational nexus with the ability to perform job functions. 
• The State's refusal to provide equal opportunity in public employment based on Hepatitis B status violates the fundamental principle that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. 
• Excluding candidates with Hepatitis B from public employment creates an unreasonable and hostile classification that fails the test of constitutional validity under Article 14. 
• When public employers deny employment opportunities based solely on Hepatitis B infection without considering actual job performance capacity, it constitutes arbitrary state action prohibited under Article 14. 
• The constitutional guarantee of equality before law encompasses the right to equal opportunity in public employment, which is violated when candidates are rejected purely on grounds of Hepatitis B status. 
• Article 14 violation occurs when employment denial is based on medical conditions that have no reasonable connection to the essential functions and requirements of the public position. 
• The practice of systematically excluding individuals with Hepatitis B from public employment creates a class-based discrimination that is fundamentally opposed to the egalitarian principles enshrined in Article 14.