DHC directs Delhi Govt. to undertake Special Recruitment Drive To Fill Up Vacancies For PwDs

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Case No. : W.P.(C) 8455/2017
Case Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Date of Judgement: 06.03.2023
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001652

Brief:

While disposing off a public interest litigation filed by National Federation of the Blind alleging inaction on the part of the Delhi Govt. in implementing reervation for persons with disabilities particularly persons with visual disabilities, a division bench of the Delhi High Court directed Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to undertake a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of vacancies for persons with disabilities (calculated rom 1996 when the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 was enforced @ 3% and from 2017 till date @ 4% in various departments or establishments in a time bound manner. 

The division bench also set out a time schedule to be followed by the GNCTD to carry out the special recruitment for filling up the vacancies. Directing the concerned departments, the court said, “The notification of advertisement by DSSSB/ UPSC, as the case may be, for filling up back-log of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against requisition sent to them be issued within 30 days from the date of receiving requisition. The DSSSB/ UPSC, as the case may, shall declare the result and the process of appointment be concluded within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of result/ interview.”

Read the detailed Judgement below:

Disabeld Candidates selected on own merit in open competition can't be adjusted against Reserved Disability Quota Vacancies.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case: Civil Appeal No (s). 3303/2015  (arising out of Delhi HC Order dated October 11, 2013 in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. )

Case Title: Union of India (Appellant)  Vs.  Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Respondent(s))

Date of Order: 01 March 2023

Brief Background:

In a significant development, the Central Government recently acknowledged before the Supreme Court that disabled candidates selected based on their own merit in open competition, alongside unreserved candidates, will no longer be counted within the 4% disability quota for public sector employment. This change is expected to result in more disabled candidates with lower merit rankings being chosen within the disability quota, ultimately increasing the overall representation of individuals with disabilities in public sector positions. 

This "own merit" principle for disabled candidates had been outlined in several DOPT Memorandums & other govt. circulars on reservations for persons  with disabilities previously, but it was not consistently followed by various public sector recruiting bodies. Shri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a visually impaired candidate, raised this grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He alleged that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was not adhering to the principle of own merit for the Civil Services Examination. Several disabled candidates, despite their merit ranking in the unreserved category, were being placed within the disability quota. If they had been categorized as unreserved, Mr. Srivastava, next in line in terms of merit, would have secured selection within the disability quota.

In the case, the UPSC argued that the "own merit" principle couldn't be applied to disabled candidates due to their relaxed medical standards and the use of accommodations such as scribes and extra time for examinations. However, both the CAT and the Delhi High Court disagreed with the UPSC's stance, directing a re-evaluation of the disability quota for the relevant year by moving "own merit" disabled candidates into the open category. 

The UPSC argued that the principle of general merit as evolved by the judicial pronouncements and incorporated in the DoPT OM dated December 29, 2005 is incapable of application in respect of PH Category as the medical standards are incapable of being relaxed for application of the said principle. The principle is unworkable in the scenario of reservation in favour of differently abled persons. The term relaxed standard has not been defined in case of persons with disability and no illustration of relaxed standards as given in respect of SC/ST have been provided in case of person with disability. And that a PwD candidate who would fail medical examination would not be adjusted against the unreserved vacancy and could not be counted on merits. If medical requirements are not relaxed it would not be possible to allocate service to the persons with disability. And lastly a PH category candidate cannot be a general merit candidates because at least he has to avail one or the other relaxation in the medical parameters.  

The Delhi HC said, "There cannot be two opinions about the applicability of the principle of general merit in the light of the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006 issued by the petitioner itself. The same is the situation reflected in the mandate under Rule 17 of the CSE Rules 2008. Thus it is not possible for the petitioner to contend before us that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal in issuing directions to consider the entitlement of the applicants on the basis of said principle. We affirm the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to its observation that grant of the facility of scribe and extra time of 30 minutes in the examination to the visually impaired candidates does not amount to relaxation of standards in their favour. The omission on the part of the executive i.e. DOPT which is the Nodal Department to issue Office Memorandum/Executive Instructions on matters pertaining to the Central Service has created a situation wherein the benefit is sought to be given on the one hand through the issuance of Office Memorandum(s) dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006, and stands taken away by the other hand as a result of the inaction to issue the consequential amendment contemplated by Rule 17 of the CSE Rules, 2008.

The court further said that the Petitioner (Govt.) has itself caused a situation, whereby the entitlements which ought to have been available to the differently abled persons as early as on February 07, 1996 (the date of the commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) are being denied to them till today. The situation points out to a grim scenario which is the creation of the petitioner itself. The bench directed the Govt. to make the amendments as contemplated by Rule 17 fo CSE Rules 2008 and upheld the order of the CAT.

Appeal before the Supreme Court:

The matter was further appealed by UPSC in the Supreme Court of India which also rejected the UPSC's position and instructed the Government of India to issue a clarificatory circular to enforce the own merit principle. In compliance, the Government issued an clarifying Office Memorandum on September 27, 2022 on subject: Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Clarification with regard to the concept of own merit.

During the hearing on March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court directed that the OM dated 27 September 2022 be followed in all future selection processes strictly.

Access the Delhi High Court Judgement in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr.:

Madras HC raps a private school for refusing to admit a child with autism

Court:  High Court of Judicature at Madras

Bench: Hon'ble Jutice C.V. Karthikeyan

Case No.: W.P. No. 24973 of 2022

Case Title: The Child Vs. State of Tamilnadu 

Date of Judgement:  22.02.2023

Brief:

Fuming over the denial of admission to a special needs child, the Madras High Court rapped a school run in the name of a missionary for not following the principles of the missionary and betraying her name and Christian faith.

Justice CV Karthikeyan made the comments while disposing of a petition filed by a minor child who was denied admission at a popular missionary school in Vellore. Quoting previous judgments on admitting children with special needs in schools under the right to education act, the judge said the courts have always been sensitive to children with special needs, expressing hope that educational institutions would not betray children with special needs.

“The sixth respondent (school) has failed not only in this duty but also betrayed the name of the noble Missionary and extremely, extremely distressingly their Christian faith,” he deplored. The order was passed on the petition filed by the minor child, represented by her mother, currently residing at Gandhi Nagar, Katpadi in Vellore, seeking orders from the school to admit the child.

The child, diagnosed with mild autism spectrum disorder, was earlier admitted to a CBSE school in Padur. After the covid lockdown, the child developed some difficulties and was taken to the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities (NIEPMED) at Kovalam in Chennai.

The mother, a government officer, got transferred to Vellore and the father resigned from his job to take care of the child before the child was at the CMC Hospital in Vellore in 2021 for assessment and was confirmed special needs child.

After several schools denied admission citing a lack of special educators, the mother approached the missionary school in 2022 for admission. After holding a written examination and an interview with the child, the school refused admission saying that it had no special educators to take care of the child.

The mother, in her affidavit, stated that the website of the school had sported messages about having special teachers to support students with special education needs. Aggrieved over the denial of admission, she approached the concerned government authorities before moving to the High Court.

The judge said the sixth respondent/school is quite pathetically and ironically named after a third-generation American Medical Missionary in India. It makes him wonder whether those in administration today are riding on that name without following her principles or the core conduct which the noble lady adhered to.

Saying that the missionary, who lived between 1870 and 1960 dedicated her life to assuaging the plight of Indian women and worked tirelessly helping those afflicted with ‘bubonic plague, cholera and leprosy’, the judge said, “Very very unfortunately, her name is used by an institution which had taken a conscious decision to drive away a child and her parents, who had sought refuge and admission.”

Finding a touch of hollowness in the belated offer of admission to the school, he felt that such an offer should have been given voluntarily. The judge said the court would not stand in the way of decision-making by the mother. 

“I hope that if at all the mother takes a decision to admit the child in the sixth respondent, they would prove false my words expressed above and if they do so, I shall be the most satisfied person. The entire issue is in their hands,” he said concluding the verdict.

Read /Download the Judgement

Delhi HC appoints Amicus to decide on constituting Special courts under section 84 of RPWD Act for speedy and fair trial for PwDs

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case No.: W.P.(CRL)  2500 / 2022

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG Vs.   STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI

Dates of Hearings with Orders : 31 Jan 2023 [PDF 508KB] |  21 Feb 2023 [PDF 168KB] | 20 Mar 2023 (renotified) | 07 Jul 2023 |

Brief:

Despite an order by the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (presided by the then SCPD Shri TD Dhariyal) issued in a Suo Motu case No. 988/1141/2019/06/ 3652-3657 Dated: 22 July 2019 and further Notification dated 19 Aug 2019 isued by Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, designating Additional Sessions Judge 02 in all district courts  as Special Courts in Delhi to try offences under the RPWD Act 2016 (PDF 2.9 MB),  the issues seems to be lingering on still. Either the Court & the counsel is not aware of the developments or the Govt. has forgotton its own notification and hasn't yet activated the special courts.

In this case filed by Rakesh Kumar Kalra, a deaf individual, the Delhi High Court has appointed senior advocate N Hariharan as amicus curiae to assist it in deciding the manner in which a special court can be constituted to try offences under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ensuring a fair and speedy trial for persons with disabilities.

While framing issues for consideration, a single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on 31 January 2023 appointed Adv Hariharan to assist the court in deciding “how can a special court be constituted as per Section 84 to try offences under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016”. Hariharan will also be assisting on how a speedy and fair trial for the differently abled persons can be ensured and how the judicial system can be improved for the benefit of the differently abled.

Chapter XIII of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act deals with the special courts to try offences under the Act. Section 84 of the Act states that for the purpose of providing speedy trial, the state government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the high court, by notification, specify for each district, a court of session to be a special court to try the offences under this Act.

Section 85 also provides for the appointment of a public prosecutor for every special court by the state government or the appointment of an advocate, who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a ‘special public prosecutor’ for the purpose of conducting cases in that special court. With respect to offences under the enactment, the Act states that any person who contravenes any provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs 10,000 and for any subsequent contravention with a fine, which shall not be less than Rs 50,000 but which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Read the order below:-

Central Administrative Tribunal directs CAG to appoint a meritorious candidate with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi

Bench:  Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) & Hon’ble Mr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Case No:    OA No. 339/2022

Case Title: Amit Yadav Vs. Comptroller & Auditor General &Anr. 

Date of Order : 23 January, 2023

Brief:

The CAT Principal Bench directed the CAG to appoint the applicant with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor and added that such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The court held the approach of the CAG as discriminaotry.

In order to raise awareness on the mental illness as a disability, the bench went on to discuss an illustrative list of celebrities diagnosed with OCD and bipolar disease, who have either talked about or living with the symptoms of the condition, have reached their peaks in their career. Among many people from other other countries, the list also highlighted Deepika Padukone, film actress who faced OCD during her career.  

The applicant is a person with benchmark disability (PwBD) having a disability of 55% under the Mental illness category suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) & Bipolar disorder. He has been on medication for the same since 2017.

He appeared in the recruitment process and successfully qualified the exam and was recommended for appointment as Auditor in Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. But the CAG returned his dossiers to SSC on 28.09.2019 claiming that the applicant is not suitable for the post of Auditor and that he may be re-allocated to any other suitable department.

That Section 34 provides for another 1% reservation jointly for two new recognized categories PwBDs under clauses (d) & (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 34. PwBDs with Autism, Intellectual Disability, Mental Illness (MI), Specific Learning Disability (SLD) have been categorized under clause (d) & Multiple Disabilities under clause (e).

The SSC in its official advertisement dated 05.05.2018 just extended the right of reservation to these newly recognized disability categories under the heading “Other PwD” category  but did not mention specific posts reserved for these new categories. The advertisement provided that vacancies will be notified in due course and the candidates belonging to new categories were asked to apply under “Other PwD category”.   Thus the post of Auditor remained recognized for other PwD which includes mentally ill in both the lists of vacancies notified in due course.

The felt that the Section 34 of the RPWD Act clearly rules that there has to be one percent reservation for the PwDs categorized under clauses (d) and (e) and not (d) or (e) i.e. reservation has to be made available to both the categories under clauses and not either of the two. Therefore, the correct course of action would have been to provide reservation to both the categories i.e. under clause (d) and (e) jointly whoever amongst them secures merit would be allotted the post. In this case, the applicant has been recommended as per correct interpretation of law because he was also qualified in the merit list along with other candidates under Multiple disability falling under clause (e). Thus, in the correct course of action, both should have been appointed against one percent reservation.

Explaining the neded of facilitating persons with Mental Illnesss at workplace, the court said, "Bipolar is mood swings, emotions, impulse, what is needed is right kind of professional assistance and  rehabilitation. The persons having bipolar disease are victim of circumstances. Such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The stand adopted by intending department, i.e., CAG by itself is discriminated to the provisions of Section 34 of the 2016 Act qua the categories which are sought to be capable of performing function as Auditors. The action of the respondents defeats the purpose of RPWD Act. The paramount interest of the State is to sub-serve the aims and objects of the Act and, therefore, the persons with mental illness without any intelligible differentia cannot be discriminated qua the other diseases which fall in the zone of consideration under the provisions of RPWD Act.

The court while allowing the OA,  held that the return of dossier by CAG to SSC was bad in law and thus quashed and set aside the same. It further said that the applicant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act. Thus in the event, applicant is found unsuitable for the post of “Auditor” by the Independent Medical Board, he shall be entitled to alternative offer of appointment to alternative suitable equivalent assignment/post in another department in consultation with Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and SSC while re-assigning/re-allocating the applicant to an alternative post, it become necessary that his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected.

Read the judgement/ order below: