Blindness Doesn't Come In Way Of Discharging Duties Of Teacher: Karnataka HC Upholds Order To Consider 100% Visually Challenged Candidate
Quoting examples of visually impaired persons who have achieved great things in life such as Homer, Helen Keller and Louise Braille among others, the Karnataka High Court has observed that blindness would not come in the way of discharging duties of a teacher.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi held thus while upholding an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal favouring the application made by Latha H N, a member of Scheduled caste and who is 100% blind and directed the authorities to consider her application along with low vision applicants for the post of Graduate Primary Teacher' (Social Studies, teaching Kannada).
The court also rejected the contention of the state government that the kind of work which a teacher does in ordinary course cannot be discharged by persons with absolute blindness, though their educational qualifications do satisfy.
Underscoring that "history is replete with instances of blind people who have achieved great things in life", the court cited examples examples of Homer (900 B.C.) of great epics (Iliad and Odyssey), John Milton (1608-1674) [ Paradise Lost], Louis Braille (1809-1852) [Braille Script], Helen Keller (1880-1968) [women suffrage] & Srikanth Bolla (CEO of Bollant Industries worth £48 million].
It further referred to a 2011 Notification issued by the government which clearly stated that “Secondary School Assistant Grade – II, Assistant Master (Arts and Languages)” can be blind candidates and then said, “How blindness would come in the way of discharging duties of a teacher of the kind is difficult to appreciate.”
It further elaborated that persons with blindness in particular have several positive qualities such as: exceptional ability to adapt; resilience i.e., strong coping mechanism to overcome daily challenges, resourcefulness i.e., skill at finding creative solutions to obstacles; strong listening skills, excellent memory and recall abilities, unwavering commitment to achieving goals, heightened senses of hearing, touch & smell, etc.
The court said, “The 2022 Recruitment Notification does not provide for reservation for the blind candidates. Had such reservation been provided, arguably we could have countenanced the contention of learned HCGP that the post in question having been earmarked for candidates of 'low vision' only, blind candidate could not have staked his claim for the same.”
Noting that as between the candidates of 'low vision' and the candidates of 'absolute blindness', the court said that the priority avails to the later since they are more disadvantageously placed qua the former.
The court held “The impugned order of the Tribunal has brought about social justice to the class of persons whom nature has placed at a disadvantageous position; to that predicament, Article 12 Entity should not add by taking an unconscionable stand in adjudication of the cause.”
It added “The authority that ought to have earmarked some posts for the blind, or in the alternative should have permitted the blind candidates too to be in the fray along with persons of 'low vision' for the post in question. An argument to the contrary would offend the laudable policy of the State as enacted in the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the present statute namely, the People with Disabilities Act, 2016.”
Rejecting the petition the court said “The Tribunal has not excluded the candidates of low vision from the fray; it has only widened the fray by permitting blind candidates in it. Courts & Tribunals have to mould the relief to suit the requirement of law, reason & justice, and the impugned order has achieved that objective.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND Latha H N
Appearance: HCGP Saritha Kulkarni for Petitioners.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19994 OF 2024