Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 324
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
Gopal Prasad
Versus
Union Of India
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14160 of 2005 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 2007
People with disabilities are equal citizens and cannot be denied opportunities for employment.
Headnote:
Disability Rights - Employment - The court held that the petitioner, despite initially having a 15% disability, was later certified by a medical board to have a 40% disability. The court emphasized that people with disabilities are equal citizens and cannot be denied opportunities for employment. The impugned order canceling the petitioner's candidature was quashed, and the respondents were directed to complete the formalities of the petitioner's appointment on priority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially declared to have a 15% disability, was later certified to have a 40% disability by a medical board. Despite making it to the merit list and being provisionally selected, the petitioner's candidature was canceled by the respondents citing ineligibility due to the initial disability percentage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature based on the initial disability percentage was illegal and quashed the impugned order. The court directed the respondents to complete the formalities of the petitioner's appointment on priority.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature based on the initial disability percentage despite later certification of a higher disability percentage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that people with disabilities are equal citizens and cannot be denied opportunities for employment. The court held that the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature based on the initial disability percentage was illegal.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to complete the formalities of the petitioner's appointment on priority.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2004 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Administration), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Patna. By the impugned order the petitioners candidature/selection from the select list of successful candidates has been cancelled. The ground given in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment under physically handicapped category since at the initial stage of applying his disability was limited to 15%, whereas a minimum disability of 40% was required for the persons to be eligible to appear in the physically handicapped category.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is suffering from Polio gave his declaration while applying for the post of Junior Accounts Officer for the recruitment year 2003. Thereafter an admit card was issued to him, he was allowed to sit for the examination and a merit list was prepared. The petitioner made it to the merit list after having qualified in the examination held by the authorities. The petitioner was directed to produce various certificates or the documents in original for final selection. The list is given out in Annexure-5 annexed to the writ application. In terms of Annexure-6 a letter was also issued to the petitioner dated 16.10.2003 that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Junior Accounts Officer. He was directed to submit his original degree certificate, matriculation certificate medical fitness certificate from a medical board and a security deposit of Rs. 5000/-.
4. The petitioner subsequently was placed before the medical board constituted by the respondents and the medical board opined that the petitioner was suffering from 40% disability. This is dated 8.11.2003. After having completed all the exercise it was on 10th May, 2004 that the respondents discovered that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post in question since at the relevant time he was suffering from 15% disability that being the position the respondent authorities in their wisdom decided to cancel the candidature of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates.
5. As already recorded above two things emerge that even though at the initial threshold the petitioner was suffering from 15% disability but at the time of appointment the medical board appointed by the respondents held the disability of the petitioner to be 40%. The other aspect is that there was no suppression or misdeclaration of any kind made by the petitioner while applying for the said post under physically handicapped category. By allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination, the respondents acquiesced. The petitioner has successfully competed in the examination made it to the select list and thereafter he was issued a letter (Annexure-6) by the respondents informing him of provisional selection. It is too late a stage now to throw him out on this technical plea that at the initial stage when he applied he was not eligible.
6. The Government of India by a legislation passed in 1995 known as Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, made it mandatory for various Government organisation to provide fullest participation to people with disabilities. People with disabilities are equal citizens of this country and by virtue of their physical deformity they cannot be denied opportunities to lead a normal respectful life by seeking employment under the Government of India or any of its Organisations.
7. Petitioner is at present certified by a medical board constituted by the respondents to have 40% disability. Since he has the minimum disability now he cannot be denied appointment as an afterthought that the authorities made a mistake by allowing him to appear at the examination at the initial stage. They ought to have barred the petitioner from participating in the examination at the very initial stage.
