Difference between various types of Disabilities and its Causes

Shaji Kumar vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Shaji Kumar
Respondents: Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others
Citation: 2004(1) KLT 961
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: Cyriac Joseph and KK Denesan

Facts

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) invited applications for Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealerships at Kottiyam in Kollam District and Kadambanadu in Pathanamthitta District. The outlet at Kottiyam was reserved for a physically handicapped person. Shaji Kumar was congenitally physically disabled with 45% disability. Therefore, he submitted an application for the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership at Kottiyam.

The Dealer Selection Board called him for an interview. After the selection, a rank list was published and Mohammed Shanni, one of the applicants, ranked first while Shaji was second. Md. Shanni was disabled as a result of a motor accident. Shaji submitted a representation to the selection board pointing out that congenitally handicapped people ought to be given preference over people who were handicapped by accidents.

The selection board asked him to appear before them with all the evidence to support his allegations against the selection of the candidate. Shaji appeared before the Board and submitted a copy of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal's order granting compensation till the date of recovery. Md. Shanni filed a petition asking for a direction to be given to the BPCL to allot him the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet and to ask the Board to dispose off Shaji's representation.

BPCL, in their affidavit, stated that the Diesel Outlet in Kottiyam was reserved for the physically handicapped; they had not mentioned that the handicap should be congenital, as the Corporation did not have any such specific requirement. It was also stated that the Dealer Selection Board conducted the interview and selection and no one else had a role in the process of selection. The Dealer Selection Board filed a counter affidavit, according to which Md. Shanni ranked first and Shaji did not find place in the merit list.

The guidelines of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas did not recommend that the disability suffered should be congenital and therefore, even if the disability was on account of an accident, such candidates were also eligible to be considered in the quota for physically handicapped persons. The Court rejected Shaji's contention asking for preference for persons with congenital disability over people who acquire disability later. Hence, Shaji filed the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

Noting that the earlier Court had correctly rejected Shaji's contention this Court found no reason to interfere with its findings. On the point that the objective of the Persons with Disabilities Act was to give benefit to those who were disabled not by accident but by natural causes, the Court felt that there was no such distinction made under the Act. So the appeal was dismissed.

Sections Referred: