Sub Categorization in Disability Category not Allowed

K.V. Ramana vs. the Director, O/o Director General of Audit (Defence Services) and Ors

Filed under: Sections 33, 58 Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Societies Registration Act
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: K.V. Ramana
Respondent: The Director, O/o Director General of Audit (Defense Services) and Ors
Citation: 2005 (3) SLJ 61 (CAT)
Court: In the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad
Judges: R.K. Prasada Rao and S.K. Agarwal

Facts

K.V. Ramana was a physically handicapped person with a disability that had been assessed at 60% as per the medical certificate issued by a Competent Authority. The disability affected him in one of his legs. The Deputy Director of Audits, Air Force and Navy, ABE Park, Vikaskhapatnam, issued a notification inviting applications from eligible physically handicapped persons to the post of Group-D (Peon).

Ramana applied for the post under the category of physically handicapped persons with orthopedic disability. However, he did not receive any call or letter for the interview therefore; he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad. However, his application was disposed off at the admission stage itself directing the Senior Audit Officer, Viskhapatnam to conduct an interview for him, subject to his eligibility, for the post notified.

Thereafter Ramana was allowed to attend the interview pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal. But, subsequently he came to know that he had been rejected as he did not fall under the sub-categorization of the physically handicapped, for whom the post had been reserved.

Ramana contended in the present appeal that the sub-categorization made for the physically handicapped persons, restricting the selection to only one arm affected person was not permissible under law and that it was in violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

At his insistence, the Visakhapatanam Handicapped Service Welfare Society submitted a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatanam, expressing their grievance about sub-categorizing the orthopaedically handicapped persons thereby restricting the selection only to one arm affected persons.

Thereafter, the District Collector, Visakhapatanam sent the said letter to the respondents 1 and 2 (name not mentioned). However, the respondents rejected the representation of the society. Ramana therefore approached this Tribunal by filing the present appeal.

Arguments made on behalf of Defense Services

On behalf of Director, Defense Services it was argued that the said sub-categorization of the post had been done under the instructions of the Direction General of Audit, Defense Service, New Delhi who was the Cadre Controlling Authority and the Head of the Defense Audit Department. It was contended that this action was permissible under the provisions of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Since Ramana did not come under the sub-category, he could not be selected for the post notified at Vishakhapatanam. It was further stated that the action taken by the authorities in restricting the eligibility for the post to the one arm affected physically handicapped category had been upheld by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities who was empowered under Section 58 of the Act. The Director Defense therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disability Act, out of 3% of vacancies to be reserved for physically handicapped persons, one percent each can be reserved for persons suffering from the above 3 categories of disabilities. It was nowhere mentioned in the provisions that said reservation of 1% posts can be restricted to any particular city.

It was held that since the post advertised under the notification falls under the category of locomotor-disability, the defense services were not entitled to further sub-categorize it by restricting it to the persons with one arm affected only and denying the post to those suffering from locomotor disability in any one of their legs.

Further the Court stated that the distribution of the posts reserved for the persons suffering from locomotor disability to the various branch office of the Director of Audit Department at Pune, Dehradun, Jammu and Visakhapatanam amounted to discrimination among the persons belonging to the same class and denial of equal opportunity to the physically handicapped persons falling under the category of locomotor disability.

Additionally, the allotment of the post only to the Branch Office of a particular city amounted to the denial of an equal opportunity. Thus, it was declared that the circular instructions issued sub-categorizing the orthopaedically handicapped persons, were illegal and violative of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, and articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The defense services were thus directed to make fresh selections by considering all the applications reserved under the physically handicapped category without restricting the selections only to one arm affected candidates, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appeal was thus allowed.

Sections Referred:

• Sections 33, 58 Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
• Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India