The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the appointment of a color-blind person as a bus driver by the city transport corporation, allowing him to operate buses for a period of three years.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh expressed disappointment at the negligence exhibited by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and emphasized the gravity of the matter in terms of public safety.
In response to a petition filed by the DTC regarding the termination of the color-blind driver in January 2011 following an accident, Justice Singh instructed the DTC chairperson to submit a personal affidavit after a thorough investigation. The court sought details regarding the officer responsible for the 2008 recruitment.
The court criticised the “sorry state of affairs” and emphasised the need for the DTC to exercise due care in ensuring that its drivers are fit for their roles. The order expressed concern about the potential serious implications for public safety resulting from such appointments and requested an explanation for the circumstances leading to the recruitment of the color-blind driver.
The court questioned why the DTC appointed the respondent without considering public safety, given that color-blind individuals, unable to differentiate between colors like green and red, may face challenges in operating vehicles. The court noted the “appalling situation” where the respondent served as a driver for three years without adequate consideration of his medical fitness.
In response to inquiries about the recruitment process, it was revealed that the appointment was based on a medical certificate issued by Guru Nanak Hospital. The court deemed the reliance on this certificate as a “wrongful action” and contrary to the medical test certificate issued by the DTC’s own medical department.
The court expressed dismay that the DTC failed to assess the medical fitness of the respondent and over 100 others appointed based on the Guru Nanak Eye Centre’s report. It highlighted the delayed action of the DTC, which only constituted an independent medical board in 2013 to examine the medical fitness of the respondent. The court concluded that it was a “sorry state of affairs” and criticized the DTC for waking up to the issue only in 2013 after a prolonged period of inaction.
(With PTI inputs)
