2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
NAND LAL LUHAR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
WESTERN RAILWAY AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9994/2024 & CM APPL. 40929/2024 | W.P.(C) 10130/2024 & CM APPL. 41495/2024 | W.P.(C) 10153/2024 & CM APPL. 41724/2024 | W.P.(C) 10511/2024, CM APPLs. 43205/2024 & 43206/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, Advs. for UOI, Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Sr. PC, Mr. Vedansh Anand, GP, Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC, Mr. Mohd. Suboor, Mr. M. Seham Khan, Advs. for UOI
The identification of posts for persons with disabilities under the RPWD Act allows for classifying vacancies without infringing on the required reservation quota, distinguishing between suitable positions for different disabilities.
Headnote:(A) Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 33 and 34 - Recruitment for posts in Western Railway - Petitioners, 100% Visually Impaired, sought recruitment against reserved quota but were denied due to insufficient posts suitable for their category - The Tribunal dismissed their challenge citing proper identification and bifurcation of posts per the RPWD Act - Court found identification permissible, fulfilling the 1% reservation requirement, and upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' claims. (Paras 1, 19, 26, and 30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitioners' recruitment application (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal framework governing recruitment for persons with disabilities (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. identification of posts for visually impaired candidates (Para 7) |
| 4. details of vacancies reserved for visually impaired candidates in cen (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. petitioners' arguments and tribunal's reasoning (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's analysis on identification and recruitment standards (Para 26 , 27) |
| 7. court's conclusion and dismissal of petitions (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
01.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioners aspire for recruitment to various posts in the Western Railway. They are 100% Visually Impaired, [“VI” hereinafter]. They seek to be recruited against the quota reserved for VI candidates, for which purpose they participated in the selection process consequent on CEN,
2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Monika Arora, learned CGSC for the respondents, at length. Written submissions have also been tendered by both sides, which have been duly considered.
3. Before proceeding to the facts, we may set out the relevant statutory provisions and administrative instructions governing the field, to which learned Counsels on both sides drew our attention.
4. The Right of Persons With Disabilities Bill, 2012,
4.1 The Right of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, [“the RPWD Act” hereinafter], which unquestionably is the core statute with which we are concerned, was preceded by the RPWD Bill. The Statement of Objects and Reasons preceding the RPWD Bill read:
“The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The Act defines Persons with Disabilities as those having not less than forty per cent disability and identified seven categories of disabilities, namely, blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation, mental illness and leprosy-cured.
2. Over a period of time, the conceptual understanding of the rights of persons with disabilities has become more clear and there has been worldwide change in approach to handle the issues concerning persons with disabilities. The United Nations adopted its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities laying down the principles to be followed by the States Parties for empowerment of persons with disabilities. India signed the said Convention and subsequently ratified the same on the 1st day of October, 2007. The Convention came into effect on the 3rd day of May, 2008. Being a signatory to the Convention, India has an international obligation to comply with the provisions of the said Convention which required an entirely new legislation.
3. In 2010, an Expert Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Sudha Kaul, Vice-Chairperson, Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy, Kolkata submitted its report in 2011, suggesting a Draft Bill relating to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The draft Bill was extensively debated upon at various levels involving State Governments and Union territories and various stakeholders.
4. The salient feature
