Promotion to public service roles must consider the rights of disabled individuals, ensuring no discrimination based on physical attributes, in alignment with existing laws.

ORDER :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The respondents in OA No.1505 of 2016, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, aggrieved by an order dated 05.12.2024 are the writ petitioners herein.

2. OA No.1505 of 2016 had been filed seeking a direction against the writ petitioners to withdraw the condition laid down in their letter dated 17.12.2008 that required a physical test to be undergone to hold the post of Inspector Central Excise and to confirm the respondent’s promotion in the grade of Inspector and promote her to the grade of Superintendent from the respective dates of entitlements with consequential benefits.

3.It is the case of the respondent that she had joined the services as an Upper Division Clerk on 14.07.1994 under the disability quota. One post of Inspector of Central Excise was identified as a suitable position for disabled persons on 02.07.1999. However, a physical test for promotion to the post of Inspector was conducted. This was challenged in W.P (MD) No.9993 of 2007. The High Court had directed the respondent’s promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise on notional basis. Inspite of such direction, the writ petitioners insisted the respondent to undergo a physical test again. This forced the respondent to file OA No.735 of 2011 . The Tribunal had directed the writ petitioners to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the notification. Thereafter, the respondent filed W.P.No.16349 of 2014 seeking confirmation of promotion to the post of Inspector. Even when the writ petition was pending, about 300 individuals, who were junior to the respondent were promoted to the post of the Superintendent of Central Excise. The respondent gave a representation, but she was reverted to her original post. Thereafter, W.P.No.16349 of 2014 was closed with a direction to the respondent to file an application before the Tribunal.

4.The Tribunal noted that the respondent had served for 8 1/2 years as Inspector and after that length of service, reverting her to the post of Senior Tax Assistant had caused serious prejudice to her. It was stated that reversion on the ground of her physical disability was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5.On the side of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the height and weight measurements of the respondent was examined and the height was recorded as 142 cm and weight as 59 kg. As per the Recruitment Rules 2002, for the post of Inspector of Central Excise, the required height and weight for women in the General category were 152 cm and 48 kg respectively. It was contended that the respondent did not meet the minimum height requirement. It was therefore contended that she was not eligible or suitable to be promoted to the post of Inspector.

6.On consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal placed reliance on Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 , and held that the respondent should not have been declared to be ineligible to be promoted to the post of Inspector. It was further observed that the respondent had been notionally appointed as Inspector of Central Excise and had served in that role for more than eight years and her Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) reflected excellent performance. She was also recognized as an honest officer. Taking all these facts into consideration, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the writ petitioners to consider the respondent’s claim for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs under the Physically Handicapped category without enfor