Candidate Turns 100% Blind After Submitting Application: Rajasthan HC Permits Him To Change Category, Avail PwD Quota; Calls It 'Act Of God'

Rajasthan High Court allowed writ petition filed by a candidate for the post of a teacher for changing his category from “unreserved” to “physically handicapped” when his blindness transformed from 40% to 100% in between submission of application and publication of result.

Opining it to be an instance of Vis Major (Act of God), the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the principle of reasonable accommodation as defined under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“the Act”) should not be understood narrowly to mean only providing assisting devices but be given a broad interpretation to further the Act's objective of ensuring full and effective participation of people with disabilities.

“If the mandate of the law is to ensure a full and effective participation of PwDs in the society and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective participation as equal members of society, a broad interpretation of the concept of 'Reasonable Accommodation' which will further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, is mandated.”

At the time of filing the application for the post, the petitioner did not have more than 40% blindness due to which he submitted the application under the “unreserved” category. However, before the results for the recruitment could be announced, the petitioner became completely blind. He approached the authorities for changing his category from unreserved to physically handicapped but the same was rejected.

After hearing the contention, the Court held that no one acquired a disability by choice but it occurred due to act of God. It was unfortunate that the petitioner lost 100% vision, which was beyond his control and anticipation. This could not be ignored by the State. The Court stated that as per Article 41 of the Constitution, it was State's duty to make effective provision for securing right to work of persons with disabilities.

The Court observed that the matter was the one wherein the Principle of Reasonable Accommodation came into full play and made a reference to the case of Vikash Kumar v UPSC & Others in which the Apex Court held that,

“Failure to meet the individual needs of every disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements is essential to reasonable accommodation…Going beyond the needs of the class, the specific requirement of individuals who belong to the class must also be accommodated.”

The Court opined that the principle implied that the State must take necessary actions to ensure full participation of persons with disabilities in examinations and other processes, including allowing change of category, if needed.

Furthermore, the Court held that Section 3 of the Act was an affirmative declaration and the statutory declaration of the legislature's intent to recognize the rights of equality and non-discrimination as embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution in relation to the persons with disabilities.

“The Constitution acknowledges that not everyone in the society is in the same position, and equal standards should not be applied to those who are differently situated. Creating a level playing field is essential for achieving true, equal treatment. By enabling the establishment of special provisions, the Constitution acts as an equalizer, fostering fair opportunities for all.”

The Court held that on many occasions, the Supreme Court held that the approach of State as well as private sectors must be inclusionary and not exclusionary to disqualify candidates with disabilities.

Hence, it was opined that keeping in mind the fact that the cut off marks for physically handicapped candidates was 63.33% and the petitioner had secured 70.67% marks, the State was supposed to take an equitable and accommodative view favouring the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, directing the State to change the category of the petitioner from unreserved to physically handicapped and accordingly decide his candidature.

Title: Aditya Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 403

Click Here To Read/Download Order