2020 Supreme(Del) 1293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Bhavya Nain - Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Delhi - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5948 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2020

Headnote:

The petitioner, a law graduate, applied for the DJS 2018 under the PwD category (Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness and Multiple disabilities mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, including deaf-blindness) for which two seats were reserved. The petitioner cleared the Preliminary Examination under the PwD category, as per the revised result dated 02.02.2019, wherein he scored 132.50 marks. Thereafter, he appeared for the Main Examinations held on 09.02.2019 and 10.02.2019. Vide Notice/Result dated 30.04.2019, the petitioner cleared the Main Examination with 420 marks out of 850 marks. The petitioner duly submitted all the documents as well as the Original Disability Certificate dated 12.12.2018. Vide letter dated 04.05.2019, the petitioner was called upon to appear for an Interview/Viva-Voce test to be held on 13.05.2019. The petitioner was interviewed by the Interview Board, comprising of Hon'ble Judges of this Court and other members. The final results were published vide impugned notice dated 21.05.2019, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his disability was not found to be permanent as per the Disability Certificate submitted by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the said notice dated 21.05.2019. The Disability Certificate issued by the Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, certified the petitioner of having the disability i.e. Mental Illness - Bipolar Affective Disorder, i.e., BPAD, to the extent of 45%, and stated that his condition is "currently in remission". Further, the said certificate states that the condition of the petitioner is "likely to improve". The Court held that the petitioner is a person with benchmark disability, suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is a long term mental illness, and in terms of the RPwD Act, the petitioner was issued a certificate of disability. The Court further held that there is no requirement under section 34 of the RPwD Act that the Disability Certificate must specify that the mental illness is permanent in nature, as envisaged under Rule 18(3)(i). The mental illness of the petitioner cannot be considered to be temporary, or not permanent, merely because the certificate does not, in terms, say that the mental illness is permanent. The certificate certifies the Mental Illness of the petitioner at 45% and is valid for 5 years. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner's disability will fall below 40% merely because he is in remission. If that were so, the certificate would not have been valid for 5 years from its issue. Disability Certificate issued under Rule 18(3)(ii) is also a valid Disability Certificate for the purpose of grant of reservation provided under section 34 of the RPwD Act. The Court also held that the RPwD Act being a beneficial/welfare legislation enacted to benefit the PwD ought to be given a liberal, purposive and constructive interpretation in favour of the PwD.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a law graduate, applied for the DJS 2018 under the PwD category (Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness and Multiple disabilities mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, including deaf-blindness) for which two seats were reserved. The petitioner cleared the Preliminary Examination under the PwD category, as per the revised result dated 02.02.2019, wherein he scored 132.50 marks. Thereafter, he appeared for the Main Examinations held on 09.02.2019 and 10.02.2019. Vide Notice/Result dated 30.04.2019, the petitioner cleared the Main Examination with 420 marks out of 850 marks. The petitioner duly submitted all the documents as well as the Original Disability Certificate dated 12.12.2018. Vide letter dated 04.05.2019, the petitioner was called upon to appear for an Interview/Viva-Voce test to be held on 13.05.2019. The petitioner was interviewed by the Interview Board, comprising of Hon'ble Judges of this Court and other members. The final results were published vide impugned notice dated 21.05.2019, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his disability was not found to be permanent as per the Disability Certificate submitted by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the said notice dated 21.05.2019.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner is a person with benchmark disability, suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is a long term mental illness, and in terms of the RPwD Act, the petitioner was issued a certificate of disability. The Court further held that there is no requirement under section 34 of the RPwD Act that the Disability Certificate must specify that the mental illness is permanent in nature, as envisaged under Rule 18(3)(i). The mental illness of the petitioner cannot be considered to be temporary, or not permanent, merely because the certificate does not, in terms, say that the mental illness is permanent. The certificate certifies the Mental Illness of the petitioner at 45% and is valid for 5 years. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner's disability will fall below 40% merely because he is in remission. If that were so, the certificate would not have been valid for 5 years from its issue. Disability Certificate issued under Rule 18(3)(ii) is also a valid Disability Certificate for the purpose of grant of reservation provided under section 34 of the RPwD Act. The Court also held that the RPwD Act being a beneficial/welfare legislation enacted to benefit the PwD ought to be given a liberal, purposive and constructive interpretation in favour of the PwD.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who is certified to have been suffering from the mental illness i.e. BPAD - which is in remission and is likely to improve, is entitled to the benefit of Reservation provided to PwD under the RPwD Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner is a person with benchmark disability, suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is a long term mental illness, and in terms of the RPwD Act, the petitioner was issued a certificate of disability. The Court further held that there is no requirement under section 34 of the RPwD Act that the Disability Certificate must specify that the mental illness is permanent in nature, as envisaged under Rule 18(3)(i). The mental illness of the petitioner cannot be considered to be temporary, or not permanent, merely because the certificate does not, in terms, say that the mental illness is permanent. The certificate certifies the Mental Illness of the petitioner at 45% and is valid for 5 years. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner's disability will fall below 40% merely because he is in remission. If that were so, the certificate would not have been valid for 5 years from its issue. Disability Certificate issued under Rule 18(3)(ii) is also a valid Disability Certificate for the purpose of grant of reservation provided under section 34 of the RPwD Act. The Court also held that the RPwD Act being a beneficial/welfare legislation enacted to benefit the PwD ought to be given a liberal, purposive and constructive interpretation in favour of the PwD.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the notice dated 21.5.2019 insofar as it declares the petitioner's disability to be not permanent. The Court accordingly directed the respondent to declare the petitioner as selected to the Delhi Judicial Service without any further delay, since, undisputedly, he is the only qualified candidate in the 'mental illness' category. Upon his appointment, the petitioner would retain his notional seniority along with his other batchmates and he would be deemed to have joined his post along with his other batchmates, though he would not be entitled to any back wages. It goes without saying that the respondent shall issue necessary orders regarding the petitioner's Induction training for Judicial Officers.