The employer has the prerogative to determine qualification/promotion standards, and a liberal interpretation of the Disability Act is necessary.

M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

1. The writ petitioner/applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, was promoted to the Grade of Inspector of Central Excise, vide proceedings, dated 21.05.2008, subject to her passing the physical test in the light of the new physical parameters for Physically Handicapped Officers are evolved in consultation with NIOH, Kolkatta and in terms of the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 17.12.2008.

2. The petitioner, being one leg affected Physically Handicapped category, was called upon and instructions were given to the Commissioner of Central Excise to verify Height and Weight of the petitioner in terms of Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector of Central Excise. The petitioner made a challenge to the said order by filing O.A.No.735 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and the said Original Application and O.A.No.1046 of 2011 filed by one R.Venugopal were taken up for disposal together and vide common order dated 15.07.2014, both the Original Applications were disposed of, observing that it is not the function of the Court to lay down or modify physical standards fixed by technical bodies, like the NIOH in the instant case, for appointment to a post and the applicants were granted liberty to take up their case once again with the Central Board of Excise and Customs by submitting a comprehensive representation, with a further direction to dispose of the said representation within a stipulated time.

3. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would read among other things that the petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Clerk by way of direct recruitment under Physically Handicapped category and was promoted to the post of Tax Assistant on ad hoc basis with effect from 05.08.2001 and pursuant to the cadre restructure that took place in the year 2002, the post of the petitioner was re-designated to Senior Tax Assistant and subsequently, got promotion as Tax Assistant with effect from 19.12.2002.

4. According to the petitioner, many of her juniors were promoted to the higher scale. The petitioner would further state that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Person with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, [in short 'the Disability Act'], constituted an Expert Committee to identify/review the posts in Group A, B, C & D to be reserved for the person with Disabilities in the Ministries/Departments and Public Sector Undertakings and accordingly, the said Committee has given a report, based on which, a Gazette Notification in No.16-25/1999-NI, dated 31.05.2001 was published identifying the posts.

5. According to the petitioner, as per the above said Notification, the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs was identified for being held by a person with orthopedic disabilities with physical requirements and categories, as suitable for the said job.

6. The petitioner would further aver that in suppression/in violation of the above said Notification, the Department of Central Excise had formulated the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group-C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002, wherein they prescribed the physical test for the post of Inspector of Central Excise. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(MD)No.9993 of 2007 and pending the writ petition, the petitioner was notionally promoted to the post of Inspector of Central Excise against 3% reservation for Physically Handicapped candidates, subject to the condition that she should pass the physical test after the new physical parameters for Physically Handicapped officers are evolved in consultation with NIOH, Kolkatta, with effect from 19.12.2002 vide proceedings dated 21.05.2008. In the light of the said proceedings, the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9993 of 2007 was dismissed, by taking int