SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1079

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.P. SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Prof. I. Elangovan
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9 & Others
W.P.Nos.35808 of 2007 and 36777 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1+1+2 of 2007
Decided on : 27-03-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D.Hari Paranthaman, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R2, V.T. Gopalan, Addl.Solicitor General assisted by Ms. C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, R1 & 3, Raja Kalifulla Government Pleader assisted by V.R. Thangavelu, G.A.

The Act prevails over State rules, and the provisions of Section 33 mandate reservation of not less than 3% of vacancies for persons with disabilities.

Headnote:

Persons with Disabilities - Interpretation of Section 33 of the Act - [Persons with Disabilities] - [Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 33] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which mandates reservation of not less than 3% of vacancies for persons with disabilities. The court held that the Act prevails over State rules and directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to fill up the reserved vacancies exclusively with eligible disabled candidates.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Professor, challenged the validity of notifications issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) for not following the 3% reservation rule for persons with disabilities as provided under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the notifications denied legitimate reservation to persons with disabilities.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Act prevails over State rules and directed the TNPSC to fill up the reserved vacancies exclusively with eligible disabled candidates.

Issues: Interpretation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the validity of notifications issued by the TNPSC regarding reservation for persons with disabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act prevail over the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and the TNPSC is duty-bound to provide reservation of not less than 3% in every establishment for persons with disabilities.

Final Decision: The court directed the TNPSC to fill up the reserved vacancies exclusively with eligible disabled candidates.

JUDGMENT :-

A.P. Shah, C.J.

These petitions raise identical question of law and are concerned with the interpretation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and other related provisions of the Act. Accordingly, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner, who is a Professor and Head of English Department, Vellore College, and a Member of the Academic Council and a Syndicate Member of the Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore, has filed these petitions in public interest questioning the validity of the Notification/Advertisement No.135 dated 111. 2007 and Notification/Advertisement No.142 dated 12. 2007 issued by the second respondent-The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC for short) principally on the ground that the TNPSC has not followed the rule of 3% reservation as provided under Section 33 of the Act for the recruitment to the posts advertised. The further grievance of the petitioner is that no concession has been granted in the matter of application fee and also an onerous condition has been laid to avail exam fee exemption to persons with disabilities.

3. Notification/Advertisement No.135 dated 111. 2007 has been issued by the TNPSC calling for applications to fill 3368 vacancies through direct recruitment for the post of Typist and 507 vacancies for the post of Steno-Typist in Group-IV service for the year 2006-07. Clause 5(d) of the said Notification/Advertisement states that rule of reservation for the persons with disabilities would apply for the recruitment. By Notification/Advertisement No. 142 dated 12. 2007 the TNPSC has called for applications to fill 4103 vacancies through Special Recruitment Examination to be held on 112. 2008 for the post of 75 Junior Assistants (Security), 256 Bill Collectors (Grade-I) and 3772 Junior Assistants (Non-Security) in Group-IV service. Clause 6(e) of the said Notification/Advertisement also provides that the rule of reservation for the persons with disabilities applies for this recruitment.

4. The petitioner contends that as per Section 33 of the Act, not less than 3% post shall be reserved for persons with disabilities. Therefore, 100 Typist posts and 15 Steno-Typist posts should be reserved in pursuance of Notification/Advertisement No.135 and similarly, 123 posts should be reserved for persons with disabilities in pursuance of Notification/Advertisement No.142. Notification/Advertisement No.135, however, provides reservation only for 32 posts of Typist and 4 posts of Steno-Typist for the persons with disabilities as follows: -

TYPIST-NUMBER OF RESERVED POSTS (32)

(as found in the Annexure)

Grand Total 13 + 10 +9 = 32 (Shortfall 69)

STENO-TYPIST- NUMBER OF POSTS RESERVED (4)

(as found in the Annexure)

Grand Total 2 + 1 +1 = 4 (Shortfall 11)

Similarly Notification/Advertisement No.142 provides reservation for only 32 posts for persons with disabilities as follows: -

NUMBER OF RESERVED POSTS (32)

Grand Total 15 + 8 + 9 = 32 (Shortfall 91)

5. The submission of the petitioner is that the impugned Notifications/Advertisements denying legitimate reservation to persons with disabilities are contrary to the statutory guarantee under Section 33 of the Act.

6. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is not disputed that the reservation at the rate of 3% is to be accorded to the handicapped persons. Even other wise, the respondents are bound to do so in view of their own rules as well as the provisions of the Act. It is, however, contended that as per Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the rule of reservation of appointments shall apply only department/unit wise. For administrative convenience and practical purposes, some of the departments have been divided into various units and insofar as 3% reservations for physically handicapped persons is concerned, where the vacanc






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top