The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to rectify mistakes in the application process and provide equal opportunities to visually impaired persons as mandated by The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The petitioner is a visually impaired person, belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. He is blind by birth. He applied as a visually impaired Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of Probationary Officer, which was for the various Nationalised Banks, where the examination was conducted by a body known as “Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (hereinafter referred to as “IBPS”) which has its Head-Office in Bombay. He has been declared successful in the examination and appointed as a Probationary Officer. Yet he is not able to join his post. Hence this writ petition. The following are the admitted facts of the case.

2. The online application form was filled by the petitioner for the aforesaid post in March 2012. All the same, the online application form was being filled on the instructions of the petitioner through someone else, which is understandable as the petitioner is a visually impaired person. There a slight mistake was committed, while filling this form. In the application form the petitioner applied as a visually impaired person belonging to the Other Backward Class (in short “O.B.C.”) and not as a Scheduled Caste candidate.

3. The petitioner was given his online admit card for the said examination, which had its centre at Dehradun, in Uttarakhand. When the petitioner obtained his online admit card he discovered the mistake in his application form, which he had submitted online, where he had mentioned his category as O.B.C. visually impaired, though he was Scheduled Caste and therefore, he immediately tried to rectify this mistake with I.B.P.S. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the written examination at Dehradun on 17.06.2012 in which he was declared successful in the O.B.C. category as visually impaired person. The petitioner has obtained 51% marks in the examination which is higher marks obtained by the last (Scheduled Caste visually handicapped) as well as OBC (visually handicapped) candidate. Therefore, whichever way we look at it, or treats the petitioner, he has to be declared successful, the counsel for the petitioner would submit.

4. Being a successful candidate, the petitioner was called for the interview. The interview was held at Dehradun on 17.01.2013. At the time of his interview the petitioner again submitted all his documents pertaining to a visually impaired person as well as documents relating to his caste i.e. Scheduled Caste. It is again an admitted fact that the petitioner was allowed to give the interview where again he was declared successful. Since admittedly the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate all his documents which he had shown at the time of his interview were that of a Scheduled Caste candidate. No objections were raised at that time.

5. The difficulty came when he was given his appointment letter and asked to join his Office at Union Bank of India, (F.G.M. Office), Union Bank Bhawan, IInd Floor, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as a Probationary Officer. When he went to the said Office to give his joining, the joining was not given to him for reasons that he had submitted Scheduled Caste certificate whereas his selection had been made on an OBC category! The petitioner tried to reason out with the aforesaid authority, but all in vain. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

6. Initially before this Court there was no one to represent the IBPS/respondent no. 2. Notices were sent to the respondents and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, is now representing the IBPS as well. He has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of IBPS as well.

7. Meanwhile, after hearing the rival parties at some length an interim order was granted by this Court on 02.05.2014. The operative portion of the same reads as under:-

“In view thereof, as there is an undue harassment to the petitioner at this stage, an interim mandamus is issued to respondent No. 4 – i.e. the In-charge Officer of Union Bank of India, Lucknow (F.G.M. Office), Union Ban