Degree of Disability given Consideration over Merit

S. Murali Krishna and Ors vs. the Principal Secretary to Education Department, Government of A.P. & Ors

Filed Under: Sections 2, 32 & 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Rule 22 (2) of the Subordinate Service Rules
Appellants: S. Murali Krishna and Ors
Respondent: Principal Secretary to Education Department, Government of A.P. & Ors
Citation: 2005 (4) ALD 225, 2005 (4) ALT 216
Court: In the High Court of Andra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judges: Bilal Nazki, L. Narasimha Reddy and G. Yethirajulu

Facts

Murali Krishna and others (Names not mentioned) were 100% visually handicapped persons. They were also members of A.P. State Royal Association for Blind People, which is a registered body at Cuddapah. They had appeared for SGT (Telugu) posts from Cuddapah Zone in DSC, 2000.

However, they were not called for counseling. In DSC 2002 the Government of A.P. reserved 7 posts of SGT (Telugu), Cuddapah zone, 3 for visually handicapped men and 4 for visually handicapped women. Murali and the others however, stated that for the four posts reserved for the women only one woman was found eligible.

It was also contended that the Government of India by its memo dated 14-11-1977 had reserved the posts for physically handicapped persons in the following ratio:

  1. Visually handicapped (blind) –1%
  2. Hearing impaired (deaf/ dumb) –1%
  3. Orthopedically handicapped –1%

According to Murali and others, the Government had fixed the ratio of 1:1:1 for each category. The State Government however did not implement these directives for a long time, but after 14 years of the Government of India issuing the directives, the State Government issued a G.O. reserving the posts in the ratio of 1:1:1 and directed all the Heads of the Departments to strictly implement the reservation in the ratio so fixed. The Head of the Departments were also directed to carryout necessary amendment in the respective special or ad hoc rules.

The case of Murali and others was that the State Government was not giving effect to reservation of 1:1:1 and that the rules framed by the State were violative of Section 32 of the Person with Disabilities Act. On this issue, they filed an application before the A.P Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed.

Challenging the order of the Tribunal, Murali and others filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh where they argued for the implementation of an earlier judgment to give effect to higher degree of disability as criteria as against marks secured. This Writ Petition was however dismissed. Aggrieved, Murali and others filed the present appeal.

Observation of the Court

The Court considered the question ‘whether seats/posts reserved for disabled persons should be given to them on the basis of their academic merit or on the basis of their relative disability.’ It was further observed that a person with 100% visual impairment would find it as difficult to compete with a person with 75% visual impairment as he would with a non-disabled person. Therefore, a person with a higher degree of disability would always find it more difficult to secure a job than would a person with a lower degree of disability. The Court also considered the earlier Judgment, the implementation of which had been requested by Murali and others.

Finally, the Court held that although merit could not be sacrificed but at the same time, the disability had to be the deciding factor in offering jobs or seats to the disabled. It was therefore decided that a minimum benchmark merit criterion would be fixed and all those who secured the benchmark marks or more would then be appointed on the basis of their degree of disability and not their score.

Held: The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 2, 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • M. Rajender Reddy vs. Osmania University, ALT 1991 (II) 179;
  • E.V. Chinnaih vs. State of A.P. and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 394;
  • J&K vs. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19