Petition seeking appointment to judicial services with 70% blindness, dismissed

Madras High Court: While deciding the present issue that whether the petitioner who has
been declared to be partially blind with the percentage of disability at 70%
was eligible to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Division
Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan, JJ., dismissed the petition with
regard to the nature of duties of a Judge. The Court further stated that the
Government, in consultation with the Court, had proposed to restrict the
applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those, whose disability ranges
from 40-50%.

The Tamil Nadu government by way of G.O.Ms.No.53
dated 11.04.2005 had identified the post of Civil Judge wherein reservation
under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 can be made. In
subsequent Notifications (2012 and 2014), in accordance with the Proviso to
Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, the benefit of reservation for
the physically challenged could be availed by those blind and deaf candidates,
whose percentage of disability is 40-50%. The petitioner had applied for the
said post and secured the requisite qualifying marks in the examination and the
viva-voce, but his name was not forwarded by the Service Commission due to some
confusion regarding the entitlement of the petitioner. S.V. Narayan appearing
for the petitioner put forth that the right conferred by the 1995 Act is
absolute and the Executive cannot make any exception violating the spirit of
the Act.

The Court took up an in-depth analysis of the law and the
circulars in question. It was observed that in 2010 an appointment of a
completely blind candidate led to certain complications after which the
administration in consultation with this Court proposed an amendment to the
Recruitment Rules and bringing in the impugned Notification No.49858/Cts-I/2014-4
dated 08.08.2014. The Court further observed that the petitioner only
challenged the Government Letter dated 08.08.2014, but did not challenge Paragraph
4.F of the impugned Notification, therefore the petitioner cannot achieve the
desired outcome. It was further observed that Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995
Act itself gives the benefit of reservation to persons who suffer upto 40% of
disability. Thus the impugned Notification does not amend the fundamental
feature of reservation under the Sections and does not nullify the legislation
in any manner. [V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2015
SCC OnLine Mad 2100, decided on 05.06.2015]           

Source: Legal news India

Leave a Reply