S.34 Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act Challenged Over Exclusion Of Persons With Haemophilia: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice to Centre on a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 inasmuch as it does not provide benefit of reservation to the persons with disability of Haemophilia . Haemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by congenital deficiency of certain clotting factors. The petitioner...
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice to Centre on a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 inasmuch as it does not provide benefit of reservation to the persons with disability of Haemophilia .
Haemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by congenital deficiency of certain clotting factors.
The petitioner also sought direction to the respondent authorities to include persons with disability of Haemophilia under section 34 and provide reservation under every government establishment to them. Additionally, the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to give 'benefit of reservation' in employment to him as he is a Haemophilia disabled person with benchmark disability.
Section 34 of the Act provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4 percent of the total number of vacancies filled with persons with benchmark disabilities, of which, 1 percent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities of blindness and low vision; deaf and hard of hearing; locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; and 1 percent for persons with benchmark disabilities Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; Multiple disabilities.
A division bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas ordered,
"Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition also, returnable on 10.05.2022 and be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service."
The plea states that the petitioner is suffering from Hemophilia which has been included as a disability under the Act of 2016 but unfortunately the persons having hemophilia are not given the opportunity to get benefit in public employment which ostensibly shows that fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated.
It is further stated in the plea that all the disabilities other than hemophilia has given the reservation of getting employment in public sector but hemophilia has been excluded from getting reservation for public employment which is deprivation of Petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 where equals are treated differently and which also makes the purpose and objectives of the UN Convention and Act of 2016 infructuous.
The plea states,
"In the instant case, the Petitioner is suffering from Haemophilia and he applied for the post of General Teacher Level I –non TSP under the Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment 2021-2022. The notification dated 31.12.2021 issued by the Respondent authorities for the said post provides reservation for all types of benchmark disability but it does not provide reservation for the persons having Haemophilia, which clearly shows that the Respondent authorities has caused discrimination with the Petitioner."
It was contended by the petitioner's counsel that firstly the number of people who are suffering from Haemophilia are scarce in India and secondly Haemophilic persons with disability certificate are minutest in as much as government rules makes the process hard. It was added that in light of said circumstances people who suffers from Haemophilia and having certificate of benchmark disability are small in number and are thereby restricted from taking the benefit of reservation under section 34 of the Act of 2016 without any justifiable reasons shows arbitrariness on the part of government and deserves immediate interference of this court.
Adv. Himanshu Choudhary, Adv. Aishwarya Anand and Adv. Suhani Dhariwal appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Case Title: Ram Prakash Singh v. The Union Of India