SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, CJI., Anil R. Dave and Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
PRADIP KUMAR MAITY - Appellant;
Versus
CHINMOY KUMAR BHUNIA - Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4820 of 2013
Decided on July 1, 2013
(b) Interpretation of statute – ‘Shall’ and ‘may’ occurring in close proximity – May cannot be construed as mandatory. (Para 3)
(1982) 1 SCC 159 – Relied upon
(c) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 2(f) – Disabled person meaning person with not less than 40% disability – On coming into effect Act apply notwithstanding any State legislation, rule, instruction irreconcilable or repugnant thereto. (Para 4)
(d) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – "Dominion paramountcy" – Runs thus: Constitution, a Statute, or any delegated legislation in the form of Rules or Regulations, Executive Orders or Administrative Instructions – Thus Executive Orders or Administrative Instructions cease to have legal efficacy the moment they are contrary to their superiors, i.e., the Constitution, a Statute, or any delegated legislation in the form of Rules or Regulations. (Para 9)
(1998) 4 SCC 343; (2006) 5 SCC 386 – Relied upon
(e) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Sections 2(f), 39 and 40 – Act not making the level of disability as not more than 40 % mandatory – State regulations making 100% disability mandatory and not providing any age relaxation to disabled persons – Not ultra vires – Moreover vires of State instructions not challenged – No infirmity in impugned order. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant’s appointment on the basis of age relaxation due to audio disability (60%) as challenged by respondent no. 1.
High Court allowed the writ petition but the appellant continued in employment.
Finding of the Court:
In absence of challenge to the vires of State instructions appellant is not entitled to any relief.
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. Leave granted. We have heard counsel for the parties in detail and hence proceed to deliver judgment.
2. The dispute pertains to the employment of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 in the Group 'D' staff (non-teaching staff) of the Nazirbazar Harendranath High School, Nazirbazar, Medinipur, West Bengal (Respondent No. 6). Pursuant to holding of the interviews, the Appellant was placed first in the merit list followed by the Respondent No. 1 in second position. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, challenged the appointment of the Appellant on the ground that he had crossed the permissible age prescribed for recruitment to this Group 'D' post even on the date when the interview was conducted and completed. However, the Appellant's contention is that he was entitled to relaxation in the maximum age as a consequence of his suffering from a hearing disability to the extent of sixty per cent (60%). The factum of his said affliction is not in dispute, although it has been faintly argued by Mr. Sanyal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the applicable Rules and Regulations contemplate complete loss of audio powers for favourable treatment; and that the forty per cent (40%) disability, indubitably prescribed by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereafter referred to as, 'Disabilities Act'] does not come to the succour of the Appellant. Despite the fact that the Appellant had not succeeded in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge and thereafter had also failed in his Appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, he appears to have been in the employment of Respondent No. 6 throughout the duration of litigation and remained so on 01.10.2007 when the maintenance of status quo came to be ordered in the present proceedings. We may also underscore that concurrent findings are against the Appellant.
3. The Disabilities Act was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Proclamation that came to be adopted by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region (ESCAP), the endeavour and expectation of which was the attainment of full participation and equality to persons with disabilities in the matter of protection of their rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation. Keeping in perspective that India was a signatory to the said Proclamation, necessitating its wholesome and holistic implementation, the Disabilities Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 26th August 1995 and came into force on 7th February 1.996. The Disabilities Act, inter alia, ordains in Chapter VI, provisions relating to the employment of disabled persons through the device of reservation of posts, establishment of Special Employment Exchanges, the formulation of schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities and the reservation and setting apart of not less than three per cent (3%) seats in Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from Government etc. Etc. The Disabilities Act also specifically stipulates that if in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of persons with disabilities, i.e., (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, such vacancy shall be carried forward. If in the succeeding year the vacancies in the three categories cannot yet again be filled up by an eligible candidate, the vacancy must first enure to the benefit of any of the other two categories; and only in the event that there are no candidates even therefrom, can the employer fill up such segregated or reserved vacancy by a general appointment. It is also noteworthy that the reservation of three per cent (3%) is a minimum requirement. So far as Government as well as aided educational institutions, also poverty alleviation schemes of appropriate Government and local
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.