Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
V. SURENDRA MOHAN – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.83 Of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.17223 of 2015)
Decided On : 22-01-2019
(b) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 2 and 33 r/w Proviso to Rule 10, Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 – Only persons with more than 40% disability can claim benefit of reservation – Partial blind – A general concept – Criteria of 40% to 50% of disability held justified and having reasonable nexus with nature of job. (Para 20, 25, 27)
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 233, 234, 235 and proviso to Article 309 with Entry 41, Seventh Schedule – Control of High court over judicial services – State Government held fully competent to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), supplementing the Statutory Rules, 2007. (Para 29)
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court mentioning proposed amendment of Rules merely for completeness of facts – Contention that High Court erroneously relied upon such proposed amendment rejected. (Para 32)
(e) Constitution of India – Article 16 – State statutes referable to Article 16 – Act, 1995, section 33 – Both Articles 309 and 245 will have to be read subject to Articles 233 and 234 – Instantly Public Service Commission prescribing criteria of 40%-50% as per state Government Order issued after consultation with the High Court – Cannot be said to be invalid. (Para 35)
(2000) 4 SCC 640 – Relied upon
(f) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995– Section 33 – Reservation of 1% seats for persons suffering from Blindness or low vision – State making reservations in accordance with section 33 – Criteria of disability between 40%-50%, held, does not violate any statutory provision nor contravene any of the provisions of the Act. (Para 39)
(2010) 7 SCC 626; (2013) 10 SCC 772 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant appeared in selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under partially blind category.
High Court held that as per the decision of the Government dated 08.08.2014 and notification issued by the TNPC dated 26.08.2014 partially blind with 40%-50% disability were only eligible and the appellant having 70% disability was not eligible to participate in the selection.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the eligibility criteria.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of Madras High Court dated 05.06.2015 dismissing his writ petition has come up in this appeal. The appellant appeared in selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under partially blind category.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:
After enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1995”) the State of Tamil Nadu vide GO dated 11.04.2005 has identified 117 categories of posts as most suitable in A and B groups in direct recruitment. Item No.102 of the above list of posts identified under group A and B was to the following effect:
"LIST OF POSTS IDENTIFIED UNDER GROUP A & B CATEGORIES
S.No.
Name of Post and Department
Physical requirements
Categories of disabled persons suitable for the job
Group
102
Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division/ Judicial MagistrateFirst Class)
S/ST/W/SE/H/RW
PB/PD/ORTHO
A
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu had also issued a notification dated 31.08.2012 in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Section 33 of the Act,1995 exempting the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service from the provision of the said Section 33 in respect of complete blindness and complete impairment.
4. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) received a requisition from the State Government for filling up 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The TNPC has written a letter dated 04.08.2014 to both the State Government as well as the High Court proposing to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for selection of 162 Civil Judge (Junior Division). The High Court communicated its approval to the aforesaid proposal which was also consented by the State of Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu issued letter dated 08.08.2014 to the TNPC to go ahead with the notification for the 162 posts of Civil Judge, announcing 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf for the selection in question. The TNPC issued notification dated 26.08.2014 inviting applications through online for direct recruitment.
5. The appellant, a practicing Advocate, submitted online application in response to the notification No.15/2014 dated 26.08.2014. In the column “percentage of disability” the appellant had mentioned “more than 40%”. The disability certificate was also issued to the appellant on 10.10.2014 mentioning his disability as 70%. The written examination was held on 18.10.2014 and 19.10.2014. After examination was completed TNPC issued a letter to the appellant to submit self-attested copies of the relevant documents which also require certificate of physical disability obtained from the Medical Board specifying that his/her physical disability would not render him/her incapable of efficiently discharging his/her official duties for the post of Civil Judge. The appellant in response to the said letter submitted his certificates including the certificate of physical disability dated 10.10.2014.
6. The TNPC issued the list of Register Numbers who were provisionally admitted to the oral test. The name of the appellant was not included in the list of successful candidates. The appellant filed a writ petition No. 10582 of 2015 in the High Court of Madras. An interim order dated 13.04.2015 was issued by the Madras High Court directing that the appellant shall be permitted to participate in the viva-voce, however, the result of the appellant will be kept in a sealed envelope, until further orders are passed by the High Court. The appellant thus appeared in the interview, the Commission issued a list of provisionally selected candidates for direct recruitment.
7. In the writ petition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
