2019 Supreme(Del) 804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Bank of Baroda - Appellant
Versus
Susmita Saha - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2143 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8876 of 2018
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Praveena Gautam, Adv., Jitesh P Gupta, Adv., Pawan Shukla, Adv., Raja Ram, Adv., Shashank Khurana, Adv.
The Act aims to prevent discrimination against physically disabled persons and ensure special considerations in employment, requiring a purposive interpretation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
Headnote:
DISABILITIES - Employment - Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 75(1) - The judgment discusses the petitioner's challenge to an order directing the petitioner bank to provide employment to a physically handicapped candidate who failed to complete a diploma course within the stipulated time. The court considered the provisions of the Act, the petitioner's obligations, and the rights of persons with disabilities in employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bank of Baroda, issued an advertisement for a diploma course and subsequent appointment as Probationary Officer. The respondent, a physically handicapped candidate, failed to complete the course within the stipulated time and filed a complaint under Section 75(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to offer any facility to physically handicapped persons in respect of the time line for completion of the course, and the respondent had a legitimate expectation of employment upon clearing the exams and completing the course. The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to comply with the Chief Commissioner's order.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's obligations under the Act, the respondent's legitimate expectation of employment, and the rights of persons with disabilities in employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act was enacted to prevent discrimination against physically disabled persons and to ensure special considerations in employment. It emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the Act to advance the benefits given under the legislation and to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the Chief Commissioner's order within four weeks.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner/Bank of Baroda seeks direction thereby setting aside order dated 24.10.2017 passed in case no. 7776/1024/2017 by the learned Chief Commissioner for person with Disabilities, Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner issued an advertisement for the year 2014-2015 (13th Batch) for candidates seeking admission to one year Post Graduate Diploma in Banking and Finance (PGDBF), through Baroda Manipal School of Banking (BMSB), and subsequently, appointment in the Bank's Service as Probationary Officer in JMG/S-I cadre on successful completion of the said diploma and after fulfilment other eligibility criteria. The aforesaid appointment was subject to completion of course within one year from the date of admission (nine months classroom training and three months internship) after regular period of twelve months and by clearing all the back-papers, if any, within a maximum period of three months or one additional attempt. Accordingly, the respondent applied online for the aforesaid diploma course under the physically handicapped category and was declared successful by the petitioner bank. The respondent accepted the offer of admission on the terms and conditions containing therein. However, the respondent failed to complete her diploma course within the stipulated time i.e. in normal course a candidate is required to complete by October, 2015. In order to clear backlog papers, the candidates should have cleared all the papers latest by January, 2016. The respondent completed her course much beyond the permissible three months time that too after several attempts in September, 2016. Since the respondent could not complete her course, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed as Probationary Officer with the petitioner. The respondent made representation to the Board of Directors and the same was rejected. At last the respondent filed a complaint under Section 75(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The petitioner bank vide its reply dated 10/13.07.2017 stated that the respondent is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the appointment as Probationary Officer under the prescribed rules and regulations. But she was trying to gain sympathy by raising the same issue again and again by making representations before the various authorities. However, vide order dated 24.10.2017, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities despite possession of aforesaid facts allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner bank to provide the employment to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Chief Commissioner failed to appreciate that though the respondent completed the diploma course, however, she could not complete the same within stipulated time making herself ineligible for appointment. If the norms prescribed are relaxed for accommodating the respondent in the petitioner's bank, the same will not only deprive the other deserving candidates in the handicapped category but will also open the door for all those candidates who were disqualified in past due to non completion of the diploma course within the stipulated time. The respondent who got the admission to the 13th batch of said diploma course for the year 2014-15 was required to complete the said tri-semester PGDBF within nine months with a further grace period of maximum three months or one additional attempt whichever is earlier to clear all the backlog to enable her to be eligible for appointment.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that learned Chief Commissioner failed to appreciate that mere admission to the diploma course in BMSB does not give right to a candidate for selection/appointment as Probationary Officer in the petitioner's bank. The same is subject to certain terms and conditions. However, learned Chief Commissioner failed to appreciate th