Bombay HC refuses relief to man with hyperhidrosis seeking RBI job

The court held that although the RBI did not dispute the identity of the candidate, he had failed to abide by the job conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post and hence he could not be given any relief and dismissed the petition, which sought the RBI be directed to employ him.

In a setback to a candidate with hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating), who was refused a job with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as there was a mismatch in his fingerprints, the Bombay High Court (HC) rejected his plea on Tuesday. The plea was rejected on the grounds that he had failed to inform the examiner about his condition prior to taking the exams, in which he was successful and deemed eligible for the post of assistant.

A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and S J Kathawalla, while hearing the petition of Akshay Sakpal, through advocate Ashish Giri, was informed that the candidate had received a medical certificate of his condition prior to the exam. (HT FILE)

The court held that although the RBI did not dispute the identity of the candidate, he had failed to abide by the job conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post and hence he could not be given any relief and dismissed the petition, which sought the RBI be directed to employ him.

A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and S J Kathawalla, while hearing the petition of Akshay Sakpal, through advocate Ashish Giri, was informed that the candidate had received a medical certificate of his condition prior to the exam. Giri said his client had informed the examination authority about his condition prior to the exam and hence when there was a mismatch in his fingerprints after the exam, he could not be refused employment.

However, the counsel for RBI submitted that it had clearly mentioned about the biometric capture of fingerprints before and after the examination, in the advertisement for the post. As there was no evidence of the candidate informing the examining authority about his condition prior to the exam, the RBI had rightly rejected employment for the candidate.

The bench upheld the contention of RBI and said that although there was a shortcoming of technology, the candidate was aware of his condition prior to the exam, but failed to inform the examiner of the same, hence he could not be given any relief on technical grounds. The court dismissed the petition. The first fingerprint capture of the candidate had happened before he appeared for the online exam. The mismatch happened when he exited the examination hall. The examination authority had informed RBI about the same, but he was then allowed to take the English language proficiency test and again there was a mismatch with the first biometric. Although the candidate was successful in both the online and proficiency tests, his candidature was rejected based on the fingerprint mismatch.