IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M. SATHAYE, NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.
Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10813 Of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2024
administrative apathy - Persons with Disabilities - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 3, Section 5 - The judgment discusses the administrative apathy towards a visually impaired candidate and the application of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It highlights the principles of Reasonable Accommodation and the obligation to treat persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility in procedures.
Fact of the Case:
A visually impaired candidate applied for a position of Assistant under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category. Due to an erroneously entered date of birth, her candidature was rejected. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking to set aside the rejection and requesting consideration of her candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the rejection of the Petitioner's candidature to be unduly oppressive and harsh, violating the objective of the Act of 2016. It emphasized the need for sensitivity and flexibility in handling cases of persons with disabilities and set aside the rejection, directing the processing of the Petitioner's candidature.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the visually impaired candidate's candidature due to an erroneously entered date of birth and the obligation of the authorities to treat persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility in procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the principles of Reasonable Accommodation and the obligation to treat persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility in procedures, as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Final Decision: The rejection of the Petitioner's candidature was set aside, and the Railway Recruitment Cell was directed to process the Petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant within six weeks.
JUDGMENT:
(Nitin Jamdar, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal.
2. This case of a visually impaired candidate illustrates how administrative apathy can defeat the benefits of the legislation enacted to support the persons with disabilities.
3. A Notification 01/2019 was issued by the Respondent- Recruitment Board inviting online registration of applications from suitable candidates on 23 February 2019 for various posts, including the post of Assistant in Level-1 in ‘D’ grade. The Petitioner, being 100 per cent permanently visually impaired, applied for the position of Assistant under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category, specifying her disability as visual impairment - blind (B). The Petitioner provided a disability certificate dated 1 January 2019 issued by the Medical Authority, Parbhani, certifying her as 100% permanently visually impaired. To fill out the application form, the Petitioner sought assistance from a person at an Internet cafe. However, during this process, the Petitioner’s date of birth was erroneously entered as 10 January 1992, instead of the correct date 10 January 1993. The examination was scheduled for 2 March 2021, and the Petitioner received the hall ticket/e-call letter. Successfully passing the examination, the Petitioner subsequently received a call letter for document verification and medical verification. Document verification for the Petitioner was conducted on 17 February 2023. Following discussions with the office bearers of Respondent No. 2 - Railway Recruitment Cell regarding the incorrect date of birth, the Petitioner was informed that she could later modify the date of birth and submit the updated Aadhar Card. Subsequently, the Petitioner was called for supplementary document verification on 3 April 2023 via an email dated 28 March 2023. Meanwhile, the Petitioner had obtained the updated Aadhar Card with the correct date of birth. However, when attempting to submit the updated Aadhar Card during supplementary document verification, it was refused.
4. The Petitioner made a representation to the chairperson of the Railway Recruitment Cell on 27 June 2023 wherein the Petitioner stated that she is 100% blind and she has passed the examination and that when the Petitioner had gone for document verification, she informed that her candidature was rejected and sought information regarding the same. From the Respondents there was no communication to the Petitioner as to the reason for rejection. Consequently, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present Petition, seeking a direction to set aside the oral rejection of her candidature and requesting that Respondent No. 2 - Railway Recruitment Cell be directed to consider her candidature for the post of Assistant. The Petitioner sought an interim direction to Respondent No. 2 - Railway Recruitment Cell to keep one post vacant for the position of Assistant.
5. The Writ Petition came up for hearing on 31 August 2023. Notice was issued to the Respondents for final disposal. The Division Bench directed that, in the meanwhile, one post of Assistant should be kept vacant if it has not been filled up until the next date. This interim order to keep one post of Assistant vacant continues till date.
6. We have heard Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. L.T. Satelkar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
7. The Respondents have filed their reply affidavit, including a copy of the Detailed Centralized Employment Notification RRC- 01/2019, which is placed on record.
8. The Respondents have submitted in the reply that the Petitioner’s candidature for selection in the post of Level-1 in ‘D’ grade against the Notification 01/2019 issued by the Respondents on 23 February 2019 for which online registration of application was invited from the suitable candidates. Applications were opened from 13 March 2019 to 12 April 2019. As per item No. 7 of the Noti
Jeeja Ghosh and Another Versus Union of India and Others
Vikash Kumar Versus Union Public Service Commission and Others
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to treat persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility in procedures, as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disa....
The court emphasized that rigid adherence to recruitment rules without considering reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities violates their rights under the RPwD Act.
Mismatch between disability category claimed in application and certificate at verification justifies candidature cancellation, despite exam success; no vested right or relief for claimed inadvertent....
Point of Law : when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointe....
The interpretation of measurable disability and the eligibility criteria for reservation for persons with disabilities, as defined in the Acts, was central to the judgment.
The court ruled that candidates with disabilities must not be discriminated against based on their degree of disability, ensuring equal treatment in public employment.
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.