1999 Supreme(Bom) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.B. Ghodeswar B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Ashok M. Shrimali others.... Petitioners.
Versus
State Bank of India others.... Respondents.
W.P. No. 410 of 1999, decided on 16-6-1999.
Advocates appeared :
Ms. Madhavi Divan i/b. Thakore Jariwala Associates, for the petitioners.
Harihar Bhave, for respondent No. 1.
S.J. Shah, for respondent No. 2.
The government is obligated to identify and reserve posts for physically challenged individuals under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995.
Headnote:
DISABILITY RIGHTS - Employment Discrimination - The court directed the government to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 by identifying and reserving posts for physically challenged individuals within a specific time frame.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a visually challenged individual, was denied permission to take a probationary examination for employment in a bank. The petitioner sought enforcement of rights under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government had not fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Act and directed the government to identify and reserve posts for physically challenged individuals within a specific time frame.
Issues: Employment discrimination against physically challenged individuals, failure of the government to fulfill statutory obligations under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995, which mandate the identification and reservation of posts for physically challenged individuals by the appropriate government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the government to carry out the identification and reservation of posts for physically challenged individuals within a period of six months.
2. This writ petition highlights the lack of sympathetic consideration for physically challenged persons on the part of the State as well as the Central Government and its authorities.
3. The petitioner is a well qualified person, who, despite the physical challenge nature has inflicted on him by reason of blindness, managed to obtain academical degrees of Bachelors and Masters and sought permission for taking the examination to qualify as a probationary Officer for employment in the respondent-Bank. This was refused to him on the ground that he was visually challenged. The petitioner came before this Court to enforce his rights under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By an interim order made on February 11, 1999, this Court directed the first respondent to permit the petitioner to take the probationary examination. Such permission has been given and we are told that with the help of a scribe given by the first respondent, the petitioner has already appeared for the examination the results whereof are awaited.
3-A. The first respondent was also directed by orders made from time to time to put on affidavit the different types of jobs identified in which persons with physically challenged (we are consciously using the word "challenged" instead of "disability") can be employed. By the affidavit dated June 10, 1999 filed on behalf of the first respondent it is contended that a high power committee of the first respondent was appointed to identify the posts in which persons who are physically challenged, particularly those visually challenged, would be appointed. The affidavit states that in the clerical cadre, candidates could be accommodated in posts such as Telephone Operator, Enquiry Counter and Stenographer. The persons who are blind or partially blind, otherwise eligible, would be permitted to compete along with other employees for promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale I in the secretariats of top executives in Head Office, Regional Office in Personnel, Law, Welfare and in Rajbhasha Department. The affidavit ultimately says that the posts in scale II and above require higher job responsibility and are not found suitable for appointment of such physically challenged candidates. One of the reasons given in the affidavit in support of this decision is that a visually challenged person cannot be appointed in scale II and above posts as the job involves visual verification of vouchers and instruments etc. to ensure accuracy. It is contended that, this is a task, at least at the present state of technology, which is carried out by visual inspection. Hence, it is contended that visually challenged persons cannot be appointed on such posts.
4. It is true that the state of technology in India has not sufficiently developed to permit visually challenged persons to verify the accuracy, of vouchers and instruments by merely running them through the computer. In order to understand how the Union of India as the appropriate Government has dealt with this problem, we had issued notice to the Union of India. The learned Counsel appears for the Union of India states that he has no instructions whatsoever in the matter. We feel sorry that despite notices given in writ petition before admission no one appears in Court to assist the Court with proper inputs.
5. Section 32 of the Act makes it mandatory for the appropriate Government to carry out certain duties; (a) identify posts in the establishments which can be reserved for the persons with disability, and (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and update the list taking into consideration the developments in technology. Section 33 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government to appoint in every establishment such pe