The court affirmed the necessity of compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandating reservation for benchmark disabled persons in recruitment processes.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present OA filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned result concerning the post of Senior Clerk and Typist advertised for the GDCE. Competitive Examination Notification No. 01/2020/GDCE of the respondent;

(b) Direct the respondent to seek the report of the Nodal Officer, mandated by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs National Federation of the Blind as to compliance by the respondent of S.34 of the RPWD Act 2016 and its rules concerning the impugned exam.

(c) Direct the respondent to hold a legal and proper exam as well as the typing test to fill in the 73 vacancies of Senior Clerk cum Typist after declaring the vacancies reserved for the disabled on the actual basis of their roster.

(d) Typist.

(e) Accord all consequential benefits

(f) Award costs of the proceedings; and

(g) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant, a 100% blind person, had applied for the post of Senior Clerk cum Typist under the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC)/Northern Railway (NR) Notification. However, the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and its 2017 Rules. Specifically, the respondent did not reserve the mandatory minimum four percent reservation for benchmark disabled persons, as required under Section 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016. Despite showing 73 vacancies in the Notification, the respondents failed to indicate the mandatory reservation for benchmark disabled persons.

2.2. The respondents’ actions were in clear violation of the RPWD Act, 2016, and its Rules. The Act mandates that every government establishment shall appoint not less than four percent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities. The respondents’ failure to comply with this provision resulted in the applicant being denied the opportunity to compete for the post on an equal footing with other candidates.

2.3. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant was also denied the opportunity to undergo the qualifying typing test, despite being eligible for exemption under the RPWD Act, 2016. The respondent's actions in this regard were arbitrary and discriminatory, and resulted in the applicant being deprived of the chance to legally qualify for the post. The applicant was instead asked to obtain a disability certificate, and his typing test result was shown as "exempted" without conducting the test.

2.4. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking relief on the grounds of violation of the RPWD Act, 2016, and its Rules. On behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the Tribunal may declare the respondents’ actions as illegal and arbitrary and further direct them to comply with the provisions of the RPWD Act, 2016, and its Rules and, thereafter, grant the applicant the opportunity to compete for the post on an equal footing with other candidates.

3. Supporting the case of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondents have violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and its 2017 Rules, thereby depriving the applicant of his opportunity to the post of Senior Clerk cum Typist. The learned counsel contended that the respondents committed fraud by ignoring the provisions of reservation for the disabled, failed to maintain a mandatory roster, and did not indicate reserved vacancies in the Notification. Additionally, the respondents limited the vacancies to identified posts, viola