Vacancies for Reserved Categories to be duly filled up

Anthosh Kumar Panigrahi vs. P. Narayanan, Chief General Manager, HRMD Nabard and Ors

Filed under: Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellants: Anthosh Kumar Panigrahi
Respondent: P. Narayanan, Chief General Manager, HRMD Nabard and Ors
Citation: WP (C) 5311/2003, Decided on 20.07.2005 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Anthosh Kumar Panigrahi was a visually impaired person, who had a L.L.B. Degree. He was aggrieved due to the non-implementation by certain agencies, of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and its consequences for himself and similarly situated persons. Thus, he filed the present Writ Petition.

Arguments made on behalf of Anthosh

It was argued on behalf of Anthosh that separate advertisements were issued by the two institutions NABARD and State Bank of India for filling up vacancies to posts at Officer Level. NABARD had advertised for visually impaired candidates.

It was contended on behalf of Ashutosh that after participation in the examination, it had come to his knowledge that none of the visually impaired candidate had been selected even for the interview.

Similarly, in so far as the State Bank of India was concerned, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Probationary Officers in 2003. Although, one per cent of the vacancies were reserved for visually-impaired candidates, no appointment had been made in he said category.

It was also argued that the State Bank of India had decided not to employ visually impaired people for the post and this was not permissible in law in view of the persons with Disabilities Act.

He prayed to the Court to issue an order or direction directing NABARD to publish his result and the results of other similarly placed visually handicapped candidates and in the meantime grant stay of the process of recruitment and to direct them to reserve the required number of posts, as applicable under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995.

Arguments made on behalf of NABARD and Ors

It was argued on behalf of NABARD and Ors that there was an efficacious alternative remedy available under the said Act by approaching the Chief Commissioner.

Moreover NABARD has denied that none of the visually impaired candidates were called for interview and had given details of such candidates numbering seven, who were called for the interview.

Not only that, an additional affidavit was filed stating that four candidates were, in fact, selected and three of those have been appointed, while one of the candidates declined the appointment.

In so far as the State Bank of India is concerned, it was argued that the said bank, in fact, represented to the Government on 16.08.2003, prior to filing of the Writ Petition, for exemption under proviso to Section 32 of the said Act from appointing visually-handicapped persons.

It was however, not disputed that such an exemption had not been granted. Further, it was admitted that none of the visually impaired candidates were selected for the second round of examination, but it was stated that such a process was carried out by an independent agency.

It was however argued, that persons have been appointed in the other two categories of disability.

Observations of the Court

After hearing both the parties, the Court held that the present petition really did not survive for consideration even on merits. The Court emphasized that the State Bank of India and NABARD must make every endeavor to ensure that vacancies, if any, were duly filled up at the earliest in respect of the seats reserved under the said Act.

The State Bank of India must take due care to act promptly, especially in view of the fact that no visually-impaired candidate had been appointed at the Officer level and, thus, every endeavor should be made to fill up the vacant posts with meritorious candidates for the reserved category of visually-impaired persons and even other reserved seats if any, for the other two categories.

The petition was disposed off.