IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of public institutions to provide proper treatment and facilities to persons with disabilities, as emphasized by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 (person with disability) has been allowed and cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, Respondent No. 1, who suffers from 100% visual impairment, submitted his application form pursuant to Advertisement dated 20.07.2021 for appointment under Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services. The advertisement was issued by the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RPSC’). The RPSC gave option to the candidates with disability that they may bring their own scribe or seek this facility from the RPSC. Respondent No. 1, admittedly, opted to bring his own scribe. As the pleadings in the writ petition reveal, Respondent No. 1 reached at examination centre at 9.00 AM. It further appears that mainly on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had not brought disability certificate/medical certificate, despite all persuasion, he was not allowed to appear in the examination. This led to filing of the writ petition by Respondent No. 1.

4. In the reply filed by the appellant-RPSC, the main ground which was raised to oppose the relief sought in the writ petition, was that the instructions applicable to disabled category candidates required those candidates to bring their disability certificate at the time of examination. The other ground raised in the reply to oppose the relief sought in the writ petition was that Respondent No. 1 was required to inform at the examination centre one day before the date of examination which was also not done by him.

5. The stand taken by the appellant-RPSC did not find favour with learned Single Judge leading to specific finding that Respondent No. 1 was illegally deprived from appearing in the examination. A heavy cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellant-RPSC by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-RPSC vehemently contended and argued in extenso before us that Respondent No. 1 did not comply with the specific requirement of information to Centre Superintendent a day before the examination that he would be bringing his own scribe and at the time when he reached the examination centre, he did not bring his disability certificate. Referring to instructions (Annexure R-1 appended with reply to writ petition filed by the appellant-RPSC) under the heading, ^^Jqrys[kd (SCRIBE) miyC/k djk;s tkus lEcU/kh lkekU; fn'kk&funsZ'k^^, particularly clause 10 and 11, it has been submitted that there were clear instructions that the candidate with disability was required to inform the Centre Superintendent a day before the examination and he was also required to bring the disability certificate/medical certificate. It has also been argued that Respondent No. 1 ought to be vigilant, but he was indolent as he contacted at the examination centre office at 9.45 A.M. only whereas, examination was to start at 10.00 A.M. The authorities were entitled to make necessary enquiry with regard to entitlement of the candidate who appears with a scribe as person belonging to disabled category. Therefore, if Respondent No. 1- writ petitioner could not appear in the examination, no fault could be attributed to the RPSC.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even assuming that some violation had taken place resulting in denial of participation of the candidate suffering from disability, as per provisions contained in Sections 20 and 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the matter is required to be dealt with under those provisions and only in case of repetition of violation, extreme cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- could be imposed upon contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that learned Single Judge, while imposing cost, has misconstrued the pr