The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for special eligibility criteria for persons with disabilities and the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality in physical tests.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 41365/2023

This is an application filed by the applicant/review petitioner seeking condonation of 60 days in filing the review petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 215/2023

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated February 7, 2023 passed by this Court in the captioned writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging order dated January 13, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1078/2015, thereby dismissing the same.

2. In the order dated February 7 2023, this Court while dismissing the writ petition has stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:

19. Insofar as the submission related to Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 2014 are concerned, the same shall not come to the aid of the petitioner. It is the conceded case of the petitioner that he was examined by a special Medical Board comprising of experts in the area for conducting the medical examination. Even the proviso to Rule 19 which as under:

"Provided further that the physically disabled candidates shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirements/functional classification (abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its cadre controlling authority."

The above contemplates that, a physically disabled candidate shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirement/functional classification (abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority. Consequently, the walking test of completing 25 kilometers within four hours, in the presence the said proviso would be an obligatory stipulation and need to be fulfilled/adhered to. In fact, the stand of the respondents as submitted by the learned counsel is that, such a requirement is in the interest of the candidate. The submission that since the service concerned is IFoS, every eventuality which an officer may encounter in a forest has been perceived to stipulate such a condition, is appealing. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on the provision of Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is concerned, the same is without merit in view of the provisions of the Rules referred to above. Similarly, the submission made by Mr. Sinha that petitioner could not have been called for the walking test is also without merit in view of Appendix III of the Rules of 2014.

20. In view of the discussion above and considering the fact that examination was of the year 2014, i.e., eight years ago, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the impugned order of the Tribunal needs no interference. The writ petition being without merit is dismissed. No costs."

3. It is the contention of Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the scheme of the Rules of 2014 is in consonance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it requires affirmative protection to be granted to persons with disability in the form of relaxation. The purpose of attaching a proviso is to exempt persons with disability from the drills contained in the substantive part of Rule 18, as a person with disability cannot be assumed to possess the same level of physical stature which is applicable to the candidates across boards. Further, the legislative mandate as contained in Rule 18, understood in the context of disability jurisprudence contemplates a situation where a person with disability cannot be appointed notwithstanding the particular form of the disability which he possesses to the post to be