Mandatory Reservations

Ratheesh Babu vs. UGC

Filed Under: Sections 32 and 33 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Ratheesh Babu
Respondent: U.G.C. and others
Citation: 2004 (3) KLT 158
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: K.S. Radhakrishanan and J. M. James.

This is an appeal filed by Ratheesh Babu against Sree Sankracharya University for not providing reservation for physically disabled persons for the post of a Lecturer in Social Work.

Facts

Ratheesh Babu, a physically disabled person with 80% disability, filed an application for the post of a lecturer in response to a notification made by Sree Sankracharya University.

His main contention was that the University did not reserve any posts for disabled persons as required under the Section 33 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1996. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala requesting for the following orders:

  • The University should cancel the notification, as it did not provide reservation for disabled people.
  • The proceedings of the selection should be delayed until this case is decided.
The High Court dismissed the petition. Ratheesh filed the present appeal against this order.

Response of the University

In reply to this petition the University and the U.G.C. contended that the State Government had so far not identified any posts in the Class I and II categories in the Government service for reservation.

On this basis the U.G.C took the stand that the University should be allowed to proceed with its notification. The U.G.C. also ensured full implementation of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities.

Observations of the Court

The question raised by the Court was that could the action of the State Government in not making reservation for the physically handicapped and the disabled persons be justified under the Act.

After referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court's views were that the UGC and the other respondents were bound to implement the provisions of the Act and that it was the responsibility of the State Government to identify the posts.

The Court opined that since physically disabled persons could not man all the posts, it was the responsibility of the State Government to choose the appropriate posts. In this regard, the Court also referred to two important previous decisions made by the Supreme Court and this Court.

With regard to the present case, the Court indicated that there were four vacancies available for this post and two were reserved for other categories. However, with regard to the Ratheesh Babu's reservation appeal of one post for people with disabilities, the Court stated that this had to be done by the State Government.

The Court issued a direction to the State Government to identify and classify posts for people with disabilities within six months. However, the Court saw no reason to stay the selection process of the University and stated that Ratheesh Babu would have a claim for reservation only if the post was identified in the reserved quota.

Sections Referred:

Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full participation) Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • All Kerala Parents Assn. vs. State of Kerala, 2002, (3) KLT 423
  • Benny vs. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT 850

Top

Dilip Baruah vs. State of Assam and Ors

Filed Under: Sections 2, 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Articles 38, 41, 51, 226, 256 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Dilip Baruah
Respondent: State of Assam and Ors.
Citation: MANU/GH/0138/2001; Decided on: 04.01.2001(Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Guahati
Judges: A.H. Saikia

Dilip Baruah filed a writ petition seeking appointment for the post of a Surveillance Worker on the grounds that he was a physically disabled person.

Facts

Dilip Baruah was a disabled person having traumatic paralysis in the left hand. His degree of disablement was 60%. He had approached the State of Assam for his appointment in any Grade III or IV post, particularly as a Surveillance Worker. The District Malaria Officer had appointed him as a Surveillance worker in his establishment for a period of 30 days.

Thereafter, his services had been extended for another 15 days. For about the next 8 years Dilip's services had been availed by the department by providing extension time and again. But after that he was not allowed to continue in that post. He approached the authority and filed several representations but the State Authority did not respond to these. Thereafter, he filed this petition.

Arguments made on behalf of Dilip Baruah:

Dilip's lawyer contended that the department, despite several representations, had not considered his case for extension of appointment. It was also contended that as per the mandates of the Persons with Disabilities Act the State department was bound to provide employment to Dilip since he was a physically disabled individual. He was entitled to his appointment under the reserved quota of handicapped persons.

Arguments made on behalf of the State:

The lawyer on behalf of the State contended that in compliance with the mandate of the Constitution, the Government of Assam had taken steps for the implementation of the Act and the scheme had already been formulated. The lawyer also furnished a list of handicapped persons who had been recommended for appointment.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the list furnished by the State lawyer was only confined to the persons with blindness. According to the Court nothing had been provided where the reservation of individuals with locomotor disabilities was concerned. The Court also held that it was very unfortunate that Dilip, being a handicapped person had not been accommodated in the reserved quota by the Department.

More particularly, the Court felt that even after the implementation of the Act he had to struggle so much for his appointment. The Court also emphasized the fact that in one of the representations, the Jt. Director of health services had requested that Dilip's case be considered for appointment since he was an experienced and sincere worker.

Taking into account the facts of the case the Court directed the State of Assam to consider Dilip's case for appointment in the reserved quota of handicapped persons in any existing vacancy of Grade III or IV post. The Court directed that this had to be done within a period of 2 months. The writ petition was thereby allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 2, 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
  • Articles 38, 41, 51, 226, 256 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Case Referred:

Binita Senapati vs. State of Assam 2000 (1) GLT 1999

Top

R Manoj Kumar vs. University of Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar

Filed Under: Section 33, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: R Manoj Kumar
Respondent: The University of Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar
Citation: W.P.No.12942 of 2002 Decided on 18.11.2002 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
Judges: Goda Raghuram

This is a Writ Petition filed by R Manoj Kumar against the University of Hyderabad for not reserving seats for the posts of lecturers for the physically handicapped.

Facts

R Manoj Kumar was a person with locomotor disability. He was working as a lecturer in the Arunachal University. The University of Hyderabad issued a notification for the recruitment of 27 people for the posts of Lecturers. Manoj's main grievance was that no reservation policy had been announced by the University as required by the Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. Manoj filed this Writ Petition against this action of the University.

In response to this, the University of Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit stating that it had already implemented 3% reservation for the disabled people in admissions and recruitment of non-teaching staff. It was further stated that in an Executive Council meeting it had been resolved that 3% reservation would be provided in appointments to the lecturer cadre to the physically disabled persons.

Subsequent to this the Vice-Chancellor had constituted an Advisory Committee and the Committee had yet to submit its report. It was contended that in the meantime a need for filling up the teaching posts had been felt and as a result of which the University had issued a notification. The University also stated that it would notify the remaining 8 posts out of which 3 would be reserved for the physically disabled individuals in consonance with the provisions of the Act.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to the provisions of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act and examined the arguments put forth by both the parties. The Court held that the University could not take a leisurely approach in the matter, and was bound to act in accordance with the mandates of the Act.

It was further held that the Court could find no justification for permitting the University of Hyderabad to pursue its recruitment without having a reservation policy for the disabled persons to vacancies in the teaching posts.

Accordingly, the Court held that it could not allow the continuation of the recruitment process of the University of Hyderabad. The recruitment notification issued by the University was thereby stayed.

Sections Referred:

Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top

Dalbir Singh Bagga vs. State of Punjab and Ors

Filed Under: Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Section 79, Electricity Act, 1948, Regulation 9(b) of the Service of Engineers Regulation, 1965
Appellant: Dalbir Singh Bagga
Respondent: State of Punjab and Ors.
Citation: 1999 Lab I.C. 3650: Civil W P No.1656 of 1999 Decided on 27.8.1999
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judges: Jawahar Lal Gupta and V.M. Jain

Dalbir Singh Bagga filed a Writ Petition against the State of Punjab for not providing reservation for physically handicapped individuals in the State Electricity Board.

Facts

Dalbir Singh Bagga was a polio victim and had disability up to 60%. He had graduated in Electrical engineering and applied for a post of Assistant Engineer advertised by the Punjab State Electricity Board. Some posts had been reserved for Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Ex-servicemen, Freedom Fighters and Sportsmen.

However, no post had been reserved for the disabled people. Because of this, Dalbir had to apply in the "general category." Thereafter, he appeared for the written examination, and cleared it. He was then called for the interview. The results were then finalized and 85 persons were selected but no one belonging to the category of physically handicapped persons was selected.

Dalbir then filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the Board in not reserving seats for handicapped persons. According to him, the step taken by the board was violative of the instructions issued by the State Government under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act.

According to these instructions, certain posts were to be reserved for physically handicapped persons. He maintained that the Board was bound to reserve three posts for the physically handicapped individuals.

In response to this a written statement was filed on behalf of the Board by the Joint Secretary (recruitment). It was stated that in accordance with the circular issued by the State Government, posts had been reserved for the non-technical staff only.

It was further stated that the post for which Dalbir had applied belonged to the category of technical posting and reservation for physically handicapped persons had not been done in the technical category. The Board also contended that Dalbir had applied under the General category and had not made reference to the fact that he was physically handicapped.

Thereafter, Dalbir filed a 'replication' claiming that with effect from 1996, the State Electricity Board was bound to make reservations in the technical and the non-technical posts unless they were exempted by some notification issued by the State Government.

This case was then posted for hearing before the court. The case was adjourned at the request of the lawyer on behalf of the Board on grounds that it needed time to obtain the instructions that had been issued by the State Government.

Observations of the Court

The Court made reference to several relevant sections and examined the arguments put forth by both the parties. The Court held that in regards to the argument that Dalbir had not mentioned in his application that he was a physically disabled person; the advertisement issued by the board had also made no mention of such a category.

It was further stated that since the Board had failed to make the requisite reservations it was in no position to blame Dalbir for not informing them about his disability.

According to the Court, it had also not been shown by the Board that Dalbir's disability would have interfered with efficient performance of the duties. The Court also rejected the argument that since no other handicapped candidates had appeared, Dalbir could not be granted employment. The Court held that this argument was not tenable and it would not be fair to deny Dalbir employment on this ground.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and the Board was directed to consider Dalbir's claim against an existing vacancy or any vacancy that might become available in the immediate future. The Court ordered that the needful should be done within a period of 2 months.

Top

Ram Sevak Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors

Filed Under: Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, U.P. Public Service Commission Act, 1993
Appellant: Ram Sevak Tripathi
Respondent: U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: MANU/UP/0496/2002; Decided on 20.5.2002 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judges: M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari

Ram Sevak Tripathi filed a Writ Petition for the reservation of a post for a visually handicapped candidate and for fixing 35% as minimum qualifying mark in the examination conducted by the Commission for State/Subordinate Services.

Facts

Ram was a visually handicapped person who was working as a Senior Assistant in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in the Regional Transport Office, Allahabad. He filed this petition asking for the following relief:

Firstly, to issue a writ against the U.P. Public Service Commission to provide 1% reservation in favor of the visually handicapped persons as provided by the Persons with Disabilities Act and the U.P Public Service Commission (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act.

Secondly, he demanded that in his case, the U.P. Public Service Commission should consider 35% marks to be the qualifying marks and that his application should be evaluated accordingly, and that he should be permitted to appear in the main examination conducted by the Commission for State/Subordinate Services in the following month.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the various arguments extended by Ram. In response to the first contention, the Court accepted the same and held that the State Government should identify posts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the Court also pointed out that since the State Government had not identified such posts, no order could be passed for the appointment of any individual for the posts that had not been identified.

With respect to the second contention, the Court held that the marks he had obtained in the exam were less than those obtained by the last candidate in the physically handicapped category and consequently, he had been rightly placed in the merit list. It was also held by the Court that the criterion of 35% marks as being the qualifying mark had been kept for the candidates belonging to the SC/ST category.

Such a criterion could not be made applicable for the candidates who belonged to the physically handicapped category, since the two categories differed in many respects. The Court decided that since Ram had not been able to clear the preliminary examination, he was not eligible to sit for the main exams. Further, the Court held that it could not interfere with the qualification/eligibility prescribed for academic matters.

Cases Referred:

  • Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University 2001 (8) SCC 546
  • University of Mysore vs. CD Govinda Rao AIR 1964 SC 49

Top

Vinod Kumar Rai vs. Public service Commission, Allahabad

Filed Under: U.P. Public Service Act, 1993, Rule 20 of Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali
Appellant: Vinod Kumar Rai
Respondent: Public Service Commission, Allahabad
Citation: MANU/UP/0241/2002; Decided on 11.03.2002(unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judges: M Katju and Rakesh Tiwari

This is a case demanding reservation for physically handicapped persons in the U.P. Judicial Services.

Facts

Vinod Kumar Rai was a physically handicapped individual who had done his L.L.B. He applied for the P.C.S. (J) in response to an advertisement inviting applications. He claimed that he was fully qualified and eligible to appear in the examination.

Vinod's main contention was that even though there was a provision of reservation for the physically handicapped individuals, no such provision was mentioned in the advertisement. He alleged that reservation existed in all public services in favor of physically handicapped to the extent of 5% under the U.P. Public Service Act and 3% under Section 33 of Persons with Disabilities Act. He filed this Petition asking for reservation for physically handicapped individuals in the P.C.S. (J).

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the High Court in response to this appeal. It was stated that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had resolved that considering the nature of the work done by judicial officers it would not be advisable to have any reservation for the physically handicapped persons in judicial service. The State Government again requested the Court to reconsider the matter and the Court restated its decision.

Accordingly, the State Government affirmed that there would be no reservation for the physically handicapped persons in the U.P. Civil Judicial Service. It was further contended that recruitment to the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Civil Judge was being held in accordance with the existing provisions, which did not provide reservation for physically handicapped individuals.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to resolutions passed by the High Court, on the Administrative side, whereby the reservation in favor of physically handicapped individuals in recruitment to the judicial service had been clearly approved.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was 3% reservation for the physically handicapped persons in U.P. Nyayik Sewa. However, the Court also took into consideration Rule 20 of Nyayik Sewa Niyarnavali that stated that only a person, who was free from physical or mental defect that could interfere with the judicial service, should be appointed.

In accordance with this rule the Court held that the benefit for reservation to the physically handicapped persons could be granted only to persons who were free from any mental or physical defect. According to the Court this had to be certified by the Medical Board set up for this purpose.

The Court stated that reservation of 3% of the vacancies should be given for the physically handicapped individuals. Furthermore, it was held that those individuals, who would have been eligible for these posts, would be treated as eligible and such individuals could apply. It was also held that in future 3% reservation would have to be made for physically handicapped persons for vacancies in the U.P. Nyayik Sewa.

Cases Referred:

State of Bihar vs. Balmukund AIR 2000 SC 1296

Top

Daya Ram Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

Filed Under: Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Daya Ram Tripathi
Respondent: State of U.P. and another
Citation:1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: O Chinnappa Reddy and V Khalid

Facts

Daya Ram Tripathi was a physically handicapped person. He had an orthopedic problem and suffered from a permanent impediment in his left leg. Despite this disability Daya Ram appeared at the combined State Services Examination held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. According to the advertisement issued by the Commission, one post in the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) was reserved for handicapped persons.

However, Daya Ram was offered the post of Manager, Marketing and Economic Survey instead of a post in the Provincial Civil Service. He did not get this job on grounds of reservation as reservation for the physically handicapped had been revoked by the State Government.

In response to this, Daya Ram filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court. This petition was dismissed on the grounds that there was no reservation of posts for the physically handicapped persons in the Provincial Civil Service. Daya Ram then filed this petition.

Observations of the Court

The Court looked into the orders that had been passed by the State Government regarding reservation for disabled persons in all Government Services. The Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh Government had issued a Government Order in 1972 in which it had announced that there would be 2% reservation for the physically handicapped persons in all Government services.

The Court further acknowledged that there had been some discussion within the department in response to a letter from the Public Service Commission and there had also been a proposal to the effect that no reservation should be made for any post for disabled persons in the Provincial Civil Services. This proposal however did not result in the issuance of any GO (Government Order).

However, the Government had informed the Public Service Commission that none of the categories of disabled persons was suitable for appointment to the U.P. Civil Service and therefore no reservation for the disabled persons could be made. However, the Court pointed out that this information was confined to “recruitment on the basis of Combined State Services Examination, 1978” and was not intended for others.

The Court also referred to the communication from the Chief Secretary, Government of U P, in which the necessity of making appointments of physically handicapped persons to the reserved posts had been emphasized.

In light of these reasons the Court held that it was futile for the Government to contend that Daya Ram could not be appointed to the post of Provincial Civil Service (refer to quotes). Accordingly, the Court issued a direction to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint Daya Ram Tripathi to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (executive branch) with effect from the date on which he should have been appointed in the ordinary course. The Court also held that Daya Ram would be entitled to all other service benefits and the costs. The appeal was thereby allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Quotes from the Judgment:

“In face of the communication from the Chief Secretary, we think that it is now futile for the government to contend that the appellant cannot be appointed to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch). Having announced their determination, very rightly in our opinion, to rehabilitate physically handicapped persons, by reserving posts for them in all the services of the government, the government cannot now create needless hurdles. The State Civil Service (Executive Branch) is a large enough service which can easily accommodate physically handicapped persons in suitable posts” (pg. 500).

Top

Nanjala Bayamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Anr

Filed Under: Section 38 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Nanjala Bayamma
Respondent:Revenue Divisional Officer and Anr.
Citation:2003 (3) ALD 500
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judge:VVS Rao

Facts

A notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer inviting applications from physically handicapped women for appointment as fair price shop dealers. The Andhra Pradesh High Court issued an order directing that the selections made in response to the notification should not be finalized.

Nanjala Bayamma belonged to the Pallipadu Village in Khamman District and when a vacancy for the dealer of a fair price shop arose in her village she applied for it. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notification inviting applications and Nanjala was one of the candidates. However, a representation was made by the Sarpanch of the village that there had been no proper publicity about the notification.

In response to this representation, this notification was cancelled and a fresh notification was issued. Nanjala then applied again but when she went to submit her application she was told that her application could not be selected. The reason given was that women candidates from the open category could not be appointed. Nanjala then filed this Writ Petition challenging the action.

Arguments made on behalf of Nanjala Bayamma

Nanjala’s lawyer contended that as per condition No. 8 of the notification, women candidates were eligible for being appointed as fair price shop dealers. According to him only preference could be given to the physically handicapped candidates but no reservation could be provided for them. It was argued that the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in refusing Nanjala’s application was improper and illegal. The lawyer also argued that the preference sought was irrational and arbitrary.

Arguments made on behalf of Revenue Divisional Officer

The lawyer on behalf of the respondents argued that the notification itself was issued inviting applications only from the physically handicapped women and therefore condition No. 8 of the notification could not be read in isolation. The lawyer also relied on the revised guidelines for appointment of fair price shop dealers issued by the Government.

According to the revised guidelines while making appointments, reservation should be made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and Physically Handicapped persons at 15%, 6%, 25% and 3% respectively. The lawyer contended that the guidelines specifically provided 3% reservation for the physically handicapped and therefore it was futile for Nanjala’s lawyer to argue that reservation could not be provided for physically handicapped candidates.

It was further argued that even if the notification did not prohibit acceptance of applications from women belonging to other categories, it did not imply that the Revenue Divisional Officer had to accept applications from women belonging to other categories who were not physically handicapped.

According to the lawyer, Nanjala was not a physically handicapped person and therefore her application should not be accepted. It was also contended that the argument made by Nanjala’s lawyer that ‘preference’ could not be equated with ‘reservation’ was not acceptable in light of the order issued by the Government. Therefore, there had been no illegality in reserving posts for the physically handicapped women.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and held that the Act was intended to achieve the desired need for safeguarding the rights for persons with disabilities. The Court observed that according to Section 38 of the Act, appropriate Governments and local authorities were under an obligation to formulate schemes for ensuring employment for persons with disabilities. It was further stated that various sections of the Act were mandatory and therefore the argument made by Nanjala’s lawyer that guidelines framed by the Government do not provide for reservation, could not be accepted.

The Court held that in the absence of proper and necessary parties who had legitimate expectations for the settlement of the dispute, the Writ Petition could not be accepted.

Held: The Writ Petition failed and was accordingly dismissed

Sections Referred:

  • Section 38 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1013

Top

Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another

Filed Under: Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Jaswant Singh
Respondent:State of Haryana and Another
Citation:(2002-03) CXXXII the Punjab Law Reporter 29
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judge:RL Anand

Facts

Jaswant Singh Pannu filed this writ petition asking that the State of Haryana and another (name not mentioned in the judgement) be directed to fill up the vacancies of posts of Quality Inspectors under the 3% quota for persons with disabilities as per section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Jaswant pointed out that with the Act coming into force, the State Government was supposed to reserve not less than 3% vacancies, in every establishment for persons with disabilities. However, no such concrete steps were taken by the State of Punjab for the implementation of the Act and therefore a petition was filed.

As a result the State of Punjab was directed to fill up vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities. Thereafter, the State of Punjab issued various letters to all the Heads of Departments, Boards/Corporations etc. requiring them to clear backlog by recruiting persons with disabilities in their respective departments.

According to Jaswant, in the year 1997-98 applications were invited by respondent no. 2 for direct recruitment against 18 posts of Quality Inspectors, out of which one post was reserved for a physically handicapped person. Jaswant applied for the post under the physically handicapped quota and appeared in the written test. He cleared the test and was short-listed for the interview.

However the interview did not take place as the respondent authorities issued a notice in the newspapers scraping all interviews on the pretext that a ban had been imposed on all recruitments. He waited for a long time with the hope that they would re-start the recruitment process but nothing happened. He then filed this petition.

A joint written statement was then filed in response to this petition, on behalf of the respondents. The stand of the respondents was that respondent no. 2 had not filled any post of Quality Inspector from the direct recruitment quota so far. Although 18 posts of direct recruitment quota were advertised, these posts were not filled because the Punjab government had imposed a ban on recruitments in PUNSUP.

It was further stated that as the posts of direct recruitment had not been filled so far there was no question of reserving a post for a category candidate at this stage. They claimed that as and when any post of direct recruitment category were filled, the respondents would take care of reservation for the physically handicapped as per the provisions of the law.

Observations of the Court

The Court analyzed the arguments raised by both the parties and held that as per the mandates of Section 33 of the Act, 3% posts had to be kept reserved for the handicapped. The statutory compliance was supposed to be done by every department of the Government and the Corporations/Boards. According to the Court the excuse given by respondent No. 2 that since a ban had been imposed, it was in no position to fill posts of the backlog vacancies was invalid.

The Court pointed out that if there was a ban then this ban would apply prospectively to those vacancies, which were already lying vacant with the respondents. The Court held that the entire approach taken by the respondents was erroneous.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to start the process of filling up the vacancies for the posts of Quality Inspectors falling under the 3% quota of persons with disabilities, reserved as per Section 33 of the Act.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top

Anjali Arora vs. National Thermal Power Corporation

Appellant: Anjali Arora
Respondent:National Thermal Power Corporation
Citation:C.W.P.No. 7120 of 2002
Court: In the High Court of Delhi

This case challenges the Constitutional validity of the rejection of Anjali Arora’s candidature by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd, for the post of Assistant Law Officer on the ground that her educational qualifications did not meet the criteria.

Facts

Anjali Arora was visually challenged with a Degree in Law from the Delhi University and was enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi State Bar Council since 1998. She applied for the post of Assistant Law Officer under the "Physically Handicapped" category advertised in the Employment News dated 28th September 4th October 2002. The post required a Graduate Degree in Law (Professional) from a recognized University with at least 60% marks (only Pass marks required for SC/ ST candidates).

Anjali completed her law degree in 1998 with 58.73% marks. Her candidature was rejected on the grounds that she did not fulfill the minimum criteria of 60% marks.

It was argued that as per the terms of OM No. 14016/1/85-Estt. (SCT) Deptt. Personnel and Training, Govt. of India dated 04.09.1995, candidates belonging to physically handicapped category were also legally entitled to the same benefits/relaxations as other reserved quotas.

Observations of the Court

The Court directed the NTPC to give relaxation to physically handicapped candidates as was available to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates in educational qualifications ie, pass marks with a direction that this concession would be reviewed after five years.

Top