The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of government establishments to provide reasonable accommodation and non-discriminatory treatment to employees with disabilities, as outlined in the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly Section 20.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.Anjaria, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Sharma for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Sudhir Mehta for the respondent.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.6.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No.169 of 2021. The Tribunal thereby upheld the decision of the respondent authorities in not accepting the application of the petitioner for allowing the petitioner to participate in the limited departmental competitive examination for the purpose of promotional post.

2.1 Before the Tribunal, the petitioner- applicant had prayed for setting aside the order dated 25.3.2021 whereby the petitioner was declared ineligible for appearing in the selection examination. Further direction was prayed for against the respondent to prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates by including the name of the petitioner. In the alternative, it was prayed to declare the petitioner as eligible to appear at the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk upon his qualifying at the examination. Yet another prayer was made to declare the eligibility conditions in the notification dated 19.1.2021 to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

3. By the communication dated 25.3.2021, the competent authority of the respondent- Railways declared the list of eligible candidates for the purpose of promotion on the post of Senior Clerk in the pay band of Rs.5,200 – 20,000 plus Grade pay Rs.1,900/- (Level 2) in LDCE quota. The said limited department examinations for which the petitioner declared ineligible was for the purpose of promotion against 16-2.3% vacancies in the rank for the Junior Clerk for those employees who did not have the promotional avenues.

3.1 The petitioner joined services with effect from 4.9.2013 as Watchman under the respondent- Railway authorities. The petitioner belongs in the unreserved category and has completed more than seven years of service. The petitioner has been suffering from permanent physical disability of the lower limbs which is greater than 40% - being the benchmark disability as defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Certificate dated 18.8.2001 has been issued by Medical and Health Department of the government of Rajasthan certifying the physical disablement of the petitioner.

3.2 Pursuant to the notification dated 19.1.2021 whereby the respondent invited application for recruitment to 16 – 2.3% LDCE quota from Group ‘D’ personnel, for whom there was no avenues of promotion was available, the petitioner submitted his application. The petitioner completed two years of service on 19.1.2021. He was eligible to apply for the examination. The petitioner was 12th standard pass with minimum 50% marks. He applied through proper channel.

3.3 It was stated that 56 vacancies were to be filled in, out of which 49 vacancies was for unreserved category, 5 for Schedule Caste category and 2 was meant for Schedule Tribe category. The reservation for the candidates having physical disability was not provided for.

3.4 It was the case of the petitioner that even though he was qualified, his application came to be rejected by the respondent authorities treating him to be ineligible to appear at the limited departmental competitive examination. The examination was scheduled to be conducted on 16.4.2021, on account of pandemic situation it was postponed and the fresh dates are yet to be announced.

3.5 The case put forth before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner was that he was physically challenged with greater than 40% disability and that the petitioner should have been allowed to participate in the LDCE for the post of Junior Clerk. It was the case that in view of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) read with Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017, (RPwD Rules, 2016) the respondent- employer und