Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, C.M. JOSHI, JJ.
The State Of Karnataka, Reptd. by Its Prl. Secretary To Govt., Department Of School Education & Literacy and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Ms. Latha H. N., D/o. Nagaraju, W/o. Venkatesh T.S. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19994 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
Decided On : 11-11-2024
For the Petitioners: Smt. Saritha Kulkarni., HCGP.
IMPORTANT POINT
Blind candidates can compete for positions reserved for low vision candidates if they can perform the required duties, promoting inclusivity in employment.
Headnote:
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - People with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Recruitment Notification dated 21.03.2022 - Reservation for disabled candidates - The Tribunal's order favoring a blind candidate's appointment is upheld, emphasizing that blindness does not preclude performing teaching duties. The court noted the absence of reservation for blind candidates in the 2022 Notification, justifying the Tribunal's decision to allow blind candidates to compete alongside low vision candidates. (Paras 2-3.6)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, a blind candidate, challenged the rejection of her application for a teaching position based on the 2022 Recruitment Notification, which only reserved positions for low vision candidates.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was justified as it promoted social justice for blind candidates, allowing them to compete for positions they are capable of fulfilling.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal erred in allowing a blind candidate to compete for a position reserved for low vision candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of specific reservation for blind candidates does not preclude their eligibility for positions they can perform, reinforcing the need for inclusive policies.
Result: Petition rejected.
ORDER :
(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)
The State and its Officers are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the State Administration Tribunal’s order dated 21.12.2023 whereby Application No. 3400/2023 filed by the Respondent (a member of Scheduled caste and absolutely blind) having been favoured, relief has been accorded to her as under:
“17. In view of the discussions above, the Application succeeds and accordingly, we direct as follows.
1. The endorsement dated 4-07-2023 as at Annexure A5 rejecting the candidature of the Applicant is quashed.
2. The selection of the Applicant in the final select list of 8-03-2023 as at Annexure A4 is correct, proper and lawful.
3. The appointment authority in the first respondent department shall consider the applicant for appointment with regard to the selection in the select list of 8-03-2023. if she is otherwise eligible for appointment. Time for compliance is three months from the date of this order .
4. The fifth respondent institution shall pay costs of this Application to the applicant of Rs.10,000/-(rupees Ten Thousand) only within one month from the date of this order.”
2. The short question very effectively argued by the learned HCGP relates to a favourable reservation for the class of disabled candidates (low vision). She submits that reservation for ‘low vision candidates’ constitutes one class and reservation for the ‘blind candidates’ constitutes another. This subtle difference between the two having been lost sight off, the Tribunal’s order has an error apparent on its face warranting interference of this Court. In support of her submission, she draws our attention to the Recruitment Notification dated 21.03.2022 and the Principal Notification dated 26.07.2011. She banks upon Apex Court decision in UNION OF INDIA v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, (2013) 10 SCC 772.
3. Having heard the learned HCGP for the Petitioners and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
3.1 It is not the case of Petitioners that a blind person cannot perform duties of the post to which Respondent had staked claim. In fact, the Government Notification dated 26.07.2011 classifies persons of various disabilities and positions wherein they can be accommodated in the public employment. The very first category belongs to candidates with blindness and the second is earmarked for the candidates with low vision. Blinds are permitted to stake their claim for the kind of work which the candidates with low vision can do. Admittedly in the subject Recruitment Notification of 2022, no reservation is accorded for the candidates with blindness. It speaks only of Low Vision candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal is more than justified in banking upon the Central piece of delegated legislation namely, the statutory Notification dated 05.03.2007 which should override the comparatively lesser status delegated legislation namely 2011 Notification of the State.
3.2 The submission of learned HCGP that the kind of work which a ‘Graduate Primary Teacher’ (Social Studies, teaching Kannada) does in ordinary course cannot be discharged by persons with absolute blindness, though their educational qualifications do satisfy the Rule requirement, is bit difficult to agree with. As already mentioned above, the 2011 Notification in so many words states “Secondary School Assistant Grade – II, Assistant Master (Arts and Languages)” can be blind candidates. How blindness would come in the way of discharging duties of a teacher of the kind is difficult to appreciate. History is replete with instances of blind people who have achieved great things in life: Homer (900 B.C.) of great epics (Iliad and Odyssey), John Milton (1608-1674) [ Paradise Lost], Louis Braille (1809-1852) [Braille Script], Helen Keller (1880-1968) [women suffrage] & Srikanth Bolla (CEO of Bollant Industries worth £48 million] are only a few to name.
3.3 Apex Court has held that even a nearly blind person [50% vi
