Acceptable Qualifications

Bharat Lal Meena vs. Goverment of NCT of Delhi

Filed Under: Article 25, 39A, 41, 148 and 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Sections 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 72 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 National Trust (for welfare of persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple disability) Act, 1999 Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1965
Appellant: Goverment of NCT of Delhi
Respondent: Bharat Lal Meena
Citation: 100 (2002) DLT 157 (DB)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: S.B. Sinha and A.K. Sikri

This case involves two writ petitions involving a common question that deals with the question of appointment of handicapped persons as Physical Education Teacher (PET), especially when they have been qualified through accredited institutions.

Facts

Bharat Lal Meena and Surinder Kumar filed different writ petitions that dealt with a common question of law. Bharat held a Bachelor of Physical Education Degree with a 60% disability (right hand amputated), whereas Surinder Singh was orthopedically handicapped with a locomotor disability.

The Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) issued public notices to fill up teaching posts including that of a physical education teacher (PET). Out of 143 posts, 4 posts were reserved for physically handicapped persons.

In response to this advertisement, physically handicapped persons applied for these posts of which 3 passed the written test. The Board then recommended these candidates to the Directorate of Education for their appointment as PET.

The Goverment of Delhi detected a mistake of the nomination of the three candidates in the physically handicapped category. Clarification was sought from the Deputy Chief Commissioner who stated that it was not possible to appoint any category of persons with disabilities for this post.

Case 1: Bharat Lal was not allowed to join and was provided an explanation (show cause notice) as to why his appointment was cancelled. Bharat Lal challenged this notice in the Tribunal Court seeking directions that he should be re-appointed. The Tribunal quashed the show cause notice and directed the DSSSB to appoint Bharat Lal.

Case 2: Surinder Kumar was also appointed in the post of PET but was also issued a show cause notice on grounds of his physical disability. He filed a petition in the Tribunal Court and the Court directed that the DSSSB to examine whether Surinder would be able to perform his duties.

However, his appointment was terminated on the grounds that he was not fit to do the job. He then filed another application in the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the DSSSB to reinstate him in the service with all consequential benefits.

In taking this decision the Tribunal Court referred to an office memorandum issued by the Govt. of India in reference to the provisions of the Act. According to this memorandum, a person with locomotor disabilities should not be excluded from being considered for the posts of PET.

The Goverment of Delhi then filed the present appeal against the order of the Tribunal Court since Surinder had a locomotor disability and was not fit to carry out the required duties.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the relevant sections of the Act and concluded that the Tribunal Court had rightly held that the letter issued by the Chief Commissioner of Disabilities was an invalid document.

It was further stated that the Tribune had pointed out correctly that if physically disabled persons were debarred from consideration for the post of PET then advertisements inviting their applications to the training course should not be issued.

It was further stated by the Court that it was the duty of the Govt. of Delhi to issue the necessary instructions. It was held that a person after acquiring the required degree could not be told at a later point that he was not eligible for the post because of his disability.

According to the Court it was the duty of the institutions to see that training should be provided only to people who would be able to perform the duties for which they have been trained. The Court pointed out that once people have passed the examination, it must be accepted that they are physically fit to perform their duties. The petition was thereby dismissed with the cost quantified at Rs. 5000/- each.

Sections Referred: