Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Deprived From Public Employment Despite Being Eligible & Meritorious On Hyper-Technical Grounds: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the intention behind enacting the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”), and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“2016 Act”) was to ensure full participation of people with disabilities (“PWDs”) in public employment and all-round efforts were needed to ensure that no opportunity was left for their integration into the mainstream society.
The division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed that it was the duty of a welfare State to ensure that PWDs are not deprived of public employment on hyper-technical grounds.
“A welfare state is under an obligation to ensure that the person suffering from disabilities should not be deprived from public employment despite their possessing eligibility and merit to hold the post on hyper-technical grounds or for ipse-dixit reasons. All-round efforts are required to be made to ensure that no opportunity is left out for integration of persons with special abilities into the social main stream to achieve the ultimate object of enacting aforementioned special legislations viz., all persons with special abilities shall get a dignified life full of equal opportunities without any discrimination.”
The Court was hearing a bunch of appeals filed by the Department of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan (“appellant”) against an order of a single judge of the Court.
The appellant had published an advertisement regarding the post of nurse and women health worker wherein 3% of posts were reserved for PWDs suffering from 40% or more disability in one leg. Applications were submitted by the respondents but they were not selected despite having higher marks than the ones who were selected.
A writ petition was filed by the respondents before the Court and in the reply to that writ, the State submitted that in the medical examination of the respondents, they were found to be having not only disability of more than 40% in one leg but also some deformity in other leg. Hence, being treated as disabled in both legs, they were not fulfilling the requisite eligibility for the post.
The single judge ruled that the State's act of rejecting the respondents' candidature amounted to a denial of fair opportunity in public appointment and thus violated the 2016 Act and the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”). The Court also highlighted that since the respondents had produced disability certificates from competent authority during document verification, they should not have been subjected to a fresh medical examination to ascertain the percentage of their disability that went on to reveal the further deformity in another leg.
An appeal was filed by the State against the order of the single judge.
It was argued by the counsel for the appellants that the advertisement for the post clearly mentioned that those having disability other than the one mentioned i.e. 40% or more in one leg shall not be eligible. The counsel further argued that the State had the right to direct fresh medical examination since an employer was entitled to adjudge the suitability of a candidate for employment.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that an additional deformity could not be used as a tool to deprive the respondents from seeking public employment.
The Court made two main issues in the matter:
Whether the State was justified in conducting fresh medical examination despite candidates possessing certified disability certificate
After perusing the relevant provisions in the Acts and the advertisement, the Court stated that although the act of the state in directing fresh medical examination could not be held to be bad in law owing to an employer's right to adjudge the suitability of a candidate, the medical examination should have been limited to examining the disability in one leg as per the condition mentioned in the advertisement.
The act of subjecting respondents to further examination for ascertaining disability in other body parts was violative of the object of the 1995 Act and 2016 Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Syed Bashir Uddin Qadri v. Nazir Ahmed Shah and others in which the 1995 Act was held to be a beneficial piece of social legislation for enabling PWDs to live a life of purpose and human dignity.
The Court also referred to another Supreme Court case of the Union of India and Ors. v. National Federation of Blind and Ors. which held that,
“India as a welfare State is committed to promote overall development of its citizens including those who are differently abled in order to enable them to lead a life of dignity, equality, freedom and justice as mandated by the Constitution of India.”
In this background, the Court held that the act of the appellants had resulted in the exclusion of eligible and meritorious PWDs and hence was violative of the legislation aimed at no discrimination of PWDs and their full and effective participation and inclusion in society.
“Section 3 of the Act of 2016 mandates that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. Thus, if the action of the appellant-State in denying appointment to the respondents despite their percentage of disability of 40% or more being approved, based on the findings given by the Medical Board constituted with reference to Note-1 appended to Clause 3 and Clause (viii) of Para No.13 of the advertisement, in relation to minor deformity in other body parts is accepted, the same would counteract the object of the Act of 1995 and Act of 2016.”
Whether the State was justified in denying the employment based on minor deformity in the other leg or any other part of the body over and above the 40% or more disability in one leg
The Court opined that if a person was suffering from disability to a certain extent in another leg or body part, it could not be said to mean that the candidate was not fit to perform his/her duty.
“Partial deformity/ shortening/ weakening of muscular strength in other body part would not render a person ineligible to be appointed on the advertised post, particularly when he/she is capable of performing all the duties and functions attached to the advertised post.”
In this background, the actions of the state were declared bad in the eyes of the law and the appeals were accordingly dismissed directing employment being granted to the respondents.
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Sunita & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 242