Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench:  Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.
Caste No(s): W.P.(C) 17460/2022 
Title: Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others
Connected matter: W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 01 November 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7914-DB

Cases referred:  National Federation of the Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB

Brief:

The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).

The grievance was raised that the advertisements failed to provide the mandatory 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons as required under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was alleged that KVS had excluded persons with hearing disabilities from several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and Primary Teacher posts.

KVS defended its recruitment process by relying upon a 2013 notification identifying posts suitable for persons with disabilities and contended that an internal committee constituted by it had assessed suitability and excluded certain categories of disabilities from specific posts.

The petitioners argued that the 2013 notification had already been superseded by the Central Government notification dated 04 January 2021 issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, and that KVS had no authority to independently exclude identified posts from reservation.

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court held that the notification dated 04 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment governed the field at the time of recruitment and had superseded the earlier 2013 notification.  

The Court observed that the 2021 notification specifically identified several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and other teaching posts, as suitable for persons with disabilities.

It held that KVS had acted contrary to the statutory framework by constituting its own internal committee and excluding deaf and hard of hearing candidates from posts already identified by the appropriate government. The Court clarified that the power of identification and exemption vests exclusively with the appropriate government under the RPwD Act and cannot be assumed by autonomous institutions.

The Court further emphasised that reservation under Section 34 must be computed on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not selectively restricted through administrative practices.

Importantly, the Court recognised that the principle of reasonable accommodation is embedded within the statutory scheme and that institutions are under a positive obligation to create enabling conditions for participation of persons with disabilities, rather than viewing disability from the perspective of inconvenience.

The Court also noted a broader “policy disconnect” between the nodal ministry responsible for disability rights and recruiting institutions implementing reservation policies, observing that such inconsistency repeatedly compels persons with disabilities to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of basic statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• KVS was directed to provide 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons against the identified posts under the 2021 notification.
• The Court directed KVS to conduct a special recruitment drive for filling backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.
• Reservation was directed to be calculated on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the organisation.
• KVS was directed to complete the process of issuing fresh advertisements and filling reserved vacancies within stipulated timelines.
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was directed to issue suitable guidelines to ensure uniform implementation of reservation policies across departments.

Commentary

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the statutory architecture under the RPwD Act and significantly limits the ability of recruiting bodies to dilute disability reservation through internal administrative mechanisms. By holding that identification and exemption of posts are functions reserved exclusively for the appropriate government, the Court prevents institutions from selectively narrowing the scope of reservation through subjective notions of suitability.

A particularly important aspect of the ruling is its recognition that exclusion often operates not through express denial of rights, but through institutional practices that undermine the implementation of reservation in practice. The Court correctly identified that such practices effectively force persons with disabilities into repeated litigation merely to secure statutory entitlements already guaranteed by law.

The judgment also advances the principle of reasonable accommodation by treating it as an active institutional obligation rather than a discretionary measure. The Court’s observation that disability was being viewed “from the lens of inconvenience” reflects an important critique of entrenched administrative attitudes that continue to shape exclusionary recruitment practices.

At the same time, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach by declining to disturb completed recruitment processes, instead directing future corrective measures and backlog recruitment. While this avoided disruption to existing appointments, it also meant that immediate structural relief to affected candidates remained limited. Nevertheless, the decision substantially strengthens enforceability of disability reservation and reinforces that administrative bodies cannot override statutory guarantees through internal policies or committees.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 17460/2022 dated 01 Nov 2023

Delhi HC holds KVS recruitment advertisement as unsustainable for denying reservation to blind persons

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Hon'ble Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula

Caste No: W.P.(C) 9520/2018 

Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others

Date of Judgement: 16 October 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7551-DB

Brief:

The Delhi high court termed a recruitment advertisement issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as unsustainable as it excluded reservation for blind persons from the post of principal in a judgement dated 16 Oct 2023.

The court said that every act of exclusion that has the effect of compelling a person with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment without their fault is an assault on their dignity . 

A bench opined that the advertisement issued by the KVS in August 2018 for the posts of principal, vice-principal, PGTs, TGTs, librarian distinguished PwDs and had the effect of excluding them from the race of recruitment as the distinction was purely on the basis of disability.

“The impugned advertisement distinguishes the persons with disabilities from others and puts a restriction on their potential to participate in the recruitment process to their full ability. The distinction is purely on the basis of disability. The advertisement has the effect of excluding the persons with disabilities from the race of recruitment, in complete violation of the mandatory reservation provision. It may be noted that an act of discrimination is not only a denial of the promise of equal protection before the law. Rather, every act of exclusion is an assault on the dignity of a person. More so, when the exclusion has the effect of compelling the persons with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment, without any fault of theirs. Instead of providing an equal space to grow, we have been compelling the persons with disabilities to prove, time and again, that they are capable of a lot more than we think,” said the bench in its verdict.

The court also said, “We may usefully note that the power of identification of posts is bound by a procedure, which, amongst other things, involves consultation with experts including persons with disabilities. The persons with disabilities are the direct stakeholders in this exercise and the legislature has aptly carved out a provision for a consultative exercise with such persons. It is a manifestation of the principles of natural justice and there can be no deviation from the statutory procedure. Exclusion of a post, without engaging in a consultative exercise, shall also be violative of the principles of natural justice.”

The bench also opined that the Sangathan at the stage of recruitment and advertisement of vacancies was duty bound to reserve 4 % of the total number of vacancies, inclusive of vacancies against identified as well as unidentified posts.

The court cautioned that it was impermissible to exclude subjects which cannot be taught by PwDs at the time of reservation of vacancies.

“Once recruited, appointments can be made against the posts identified as suitable for respective categories of persons with disabilities. There is no power with the respondent or its committee to revisit and cut short the list notified by the government. The process of identification or its review is to be carried out by the appropriate government only. Further, the said exercise is to be carried out after constitution of an expert committee with due representation of persons with benchmark disabilities,” said the court directing the KVS to reserve the post of principal for blind persons, conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies in the establishment and prepare a vacancy based roster for recruitment of PwDs within three months.

“The rights belonging to the persons with disabilities are meant to secure inclusivity and human dignity. Such rights, although statutorily enacted, find their roots in the fundamental rights of life, equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Constitution. The guarantee of equal opportunity to all equally extends to the persons with disabilities and while interpreting the benevolent provisions of the statutes in this regard, the court must be mindful of the same,” the court also said.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 9520/2018 below:

Delhi HC: Children with Disabilities entitled to basic facilities free of costs that includes, school uniform, books, assistive devices, transportation etc. [Judgement Included]

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh

Case No: W.P.(C) 14032/2022

Case Title: Manish Lenka Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of  Order: 12 December 2022

Next Date of Hearing: 22 March 2023

Subject: Free Educational Facilties for children with Disabilities

Matter in brief:

Petitioner, a student of Class 6 at a Kendriya Vidyalaya school in Noida, with a visual impairment of over 75 per cent, had moved the high court seeking a grant of books, learning material, and assistive devices along with other facilities provided under the RPWD Act. The boy’s counsel argued the child’s father is a daily wager who is unable to afford his son’s educational requirements.

The child claimed the facilities were not being provided by the school pursuant to which he approached the Court of Chief Commissioner under the RPWD Act. The Chief Commissioner on October 13, 2020, had directed that “books, learning materials, uniforms etc, as well as the facility of scribe/lab assistant” be granted to the student. The student claimed that despite the said order the facilities were not granted to him.

Submitting its status report before the high court, the school argued that all the items as requested had been provided including a scribe during offline exams for the 2021-22 session and the same shall be provided in future as well. However, the child’s counsel argued his client had not been given a waiver of the uniform fee, computer fee, and transportation cost to date.

Perusing the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD), 2016, the bench observed, “A perusal of the said provisions show that facilities such as uniform, computer fee and transportation cost are all covered under the statute… These constitute basic facilities for a child… Considering the recognition given to the rights of persons with disabilities, there can be no doubt that these facilities ought to be provided especially at Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools which are government schools present all over the country, in order to ensure that children with disabilities are not deprived of proper education”.

The bench directed the school to provide uniforms free of cost to the student within a period of two weeks and also waived the computer fee. With respect to transportation costs, since the school did not provide it, the child’s counsel was asked on the next date of the hearing to make a submission on the transportation cost incurred by the child for travelling between his home to the school and back.

The bench also directed the Centre to file a status report regarding the measures that are to be taken in regard to the transportation cost and other facilities as directed under the RPWD Act. The Centre was also directed to file a status report on the student’s requirement for an assistive device. The bench added if the child is not provided with the requisite facilities as directed by the court, he would be free to approach the Court by way of an application. 

The matter has been next listedon 22 March 2023.

Read the Judgement here: