IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that candidates with disabilities must not be discriminated against based on their degree of disability, ensuring equal treatment in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ.)

1. The right to access to justice and right to equality and equal treatment claimed by a person with disability are ingrained in the basic human right in addition to it being recognised under the Constitution of India and given effect to by the law makers while enacting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2016’). However, those principles enshrined in texts, at times, find difficult to be operated on ground realities majorly because of attitudinal behaviour and approach which lacks sensitivity and utter disregard to right to equality.

Our observations as above are the basis for decision making in the case in hand.

2. Quintessential facts relevant and necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved and as adumbrated in the factual jargon disclosed in the pleadings of the parties and various documents on record are stated infra:

2.1 Advertisement No. 3/2018 (R&P) was issued by the appellant-Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) inviting applications for appointment to the post of Materials Management Officer. Out of total 49 notified posts as many as 19 posts were reserved for visual handicapped persons whereas one post was earmarked for hard of hearing handicapped persons. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the posts were suitable for OA(One Arm), OL(One Leg), BL(Both Legs), HH(Hearing Impaired) and LV(Low Vision) category of persons.

2.2 Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner, who is visually impaired suffering from 30% disability of vision, at the highest of his morale and spirit, submitted his application form online as an OBC candidate. It is relevant to mention here that Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner did not claim benefit of reservation as physically handicapped candidate. Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was found meritorious and offered appointment vide order dated 25.09.2018, subject to production of certificate of medical fitness from the medical officer of the appellant-Corporation. When Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was subjected to medical examination, the Board formed an opinion that as per the medical certificate, Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner does not have binocular vision and there is impairment in his left eye to the extent of 30%. It appears that the aforesaid disability was treated as medical unfitness.

2.3 As Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was not allowed to join, he submitted a representation to the appellant-Corporation mainly on the ground that he could not be denied appointment on the ground of medial fitness when persons of his category with greater degree of visual impairment were considered and given benefit of reservation and offered appointment.

2.4 However, the representation of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner came to be rejected vide impugned communication dated 27.11.2018 stating thus:

“3. As per the medical norms of ONGC, the candidate should have good Binocular Vision. For regular appointment one-eyed persons are to be regarded as unfit. However, as indicated in ONGC MER-1 form, it has been mentioned that you do not have Binocular Vision. As per the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by I/c-Medical Services. ONGC, Mumbai, you have been declared medically unfit, as you are not fulfilling the above condition.”

2.5 Aggrieved by the rejection of the candidature, Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner preferred writ petition and claimed that he having secured a position on the basis of merit in OBC category, could not be denied appointment on the ground of medical unfitness merely because he was not considered against the posts reserved for physically handicapped category because those who were offered appointment under physically handicapped category suffered from higher degree of impairment of 40% and above. Therefore, even though Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner may not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation against the post re