Minor Mistakes Due To Disability Should Not Lead To Serious Consequences Such As Loss Of Job Opportunity: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that refusing to remedy errors stemming from candidates' disability contravenes the principle of equality, and employers should ensure that such minor mistakes do not lead to loss of the job opportunity itself.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye set aside the cancellation of candidature to a post in the Railways of a 31-year-old blind woman, who inadvertently entered the wrong birth year in her application.

“Visually impaired individuals may make mistakes, such as typing errors, due to their impairment or may need to rely on others. These errors, stemming from their disability, should not result in discrimination or unfair treatment by employers. Rejecting the applications and then refusing to remedy the mistakes even within a reasonable time solely because of these errors, would contravene the principle of equality”, the court held.

The court further observed that legislation for the disabled should not merely remain in the statute book, and reasonable accommodations tailored to the specific needs of disabled individuals should be made to procedures.

“The legislation for the disabled should not merely remain in the statute book; rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be applied by all authorities in its practical application showing appropriate sensitivity and flexibility. Individuals such as the Petitioner, who are 100% visually impaired, cannot be expected to stand on equal footing with other candidates in terms of usual activities. Unless there is evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or basic ineligibility, reasonable efforts should be made to modify the procedures to align with the objectives of the legislation”, the court observed.

The court allowed her writ petition challenging the cancellation and directed the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) to process her candidature within six weeks.

Shanta Digambar Sonawane, a 100 percent visually impaired woman, applied for the position of Assistant under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category. Her application stated her date of birth as January 10, 1992, instead of the correct date, January 10, 1993.

Despite successfully passing the exam and receiving a call for document verification, she faced rejection during supplementary document verification when she attempted to rectify the error with her updated Aadhaar Card. She received no response from the RRC to her representation seeking the reasons for rejection of her candidature.

Thus, she approached the high court. She claimed that being visually impaired herself, she had sought the help of a stranger while filling the form at an internet cafe, who entered the wrong date of birth inadvertently. In August 2023, the court issued an interim order to keep one post of Assistant vacant until further notice.

The RRC cited the application's incorrect information and the expiry of the modification period as grounds for rejection. The authorities contended that as per the terms of the recruitment advertisement, modifications to application details could only be made within a specified period, and any deviation from this timeline would result in automatic disqualification.

The court emphasized that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates not only equal opportunities for persons with disabilities but also reasonable adjustment to meet their specific needs. It criticized the rigid stance adopted by the RRC, highlighting the Act's underlying spirit of proactive support and facilitation for individuals with disabilities. The court remarked that this case illustrates how administrative apathy can defeat the benefit of the legislation meant to support persons with disabilities.

“The Petitioner, being visually impaired, sought assistance from someone at an internet cafe, who inadvertently entered the wrong year, a single-digit mistake.”, the court noted.

The court observed that irrespective of the dates considered for the petitioner's birth, she fell within the prescribed age limit and held a valid disability certificate, establishing her eligibility for the position.

The court also rejected the RRC's “pedantic” contention that the petitioner should seek recourse through the Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing that the matter pertained not just to service disputes but also the enforcement of rights under the Act of 2016.

Thus, the court directed the RRC to process Sonawane's application within six weeks.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 10813 of 2023

Case Title – Shanta Digambar Sonawane v. Union of India and Anr.