Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra
Case No. & Title : WP (Civil) No. 116 OF 1998, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. U.O.I. & Anr
Date of Judgement: 26 March, 2014
Equivalent Citation : (2014) 14 SCC 383)
Author: R Lodha
-----------------
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 116 OF 1998
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I. & ANR ......Respondent(s)
WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION
(CIVIL) NO. 430 OF 2000 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 1998 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6443 OF
1998
J U D G M E N T
R.M. LODHA, J. :
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998 In this Writ Petition
filed by the petitioner – a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for
implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for
short, '1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified
teaching posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of
Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for declaration that denial of
appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and college of
various Universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 41 of the
Constitution of India.
2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (one) Union of India
through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (two) University Grants
Commission (U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as party
respondents.
3. On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment of the
States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to
34 were impleaded as party respondents.
4. On 13.09.2001, the Court directed the Chief Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India to be impleaded as party respondent and consequently it has
been impleaded as respondent No. 35.
5. Then on 18.02.2009, the Court directed Commissioners for
Persons with Disabilities of various States and Union Territories to be
impleaded as party respondents and consequently respondent Nos. 36 to 70 have
been impleaded who are Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in different
States and Union Territories.
6. Certain interim orders have been passed by this Court from
time to time.
7. Insofar as U.G.C. (respondent No. 2) is concerned, the
Court was informed on 19.03.2002 through counter affidavit that U.G.C. has
acted in compliance of the 1995 Act. In paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities, it was stated :
"3. It is humbly submitted
that in pursuance of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal
Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, the
appropriate government (Government of India) has updated the list of identified
posts. This list has been issued vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.
178 dated 30.6.2001. In this list, the posts of University/College/School
Teacher for the blind and low-vision have been listed at Sl. No. 24-27 on page
No. 592.
6. The Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities has taken cognizance of the arrangements provided by the University Grants Commission for persons with disabilities by of extending 5% relaxation in cut off marks, appearing in the NET for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship. Thus, the arrangement extended by UGC is in consonance with the policy stand taken by Govt. of India in so far as relaxation in minimum standard is concerned. Relaxation in standards has been favoured only when the candidates belonging to reserved categories are not available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them.
7. The relaxation extended to SC & ST candidates as per Maintenance of Standard 1998 of the Universities, provides for a 5% relaxation from 55 % to 50% in the marks obtained at Master's Degree. Since reservation for the disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General. Therefore, all such blind/ low- vision persons who belonged to SC, ST vertical category would automatically enjoy the benefit of 5 % relaxation at the minimum qualifying marks obtained at Master's Degree level. Thus, only the blind and low vision belonging to OBC & General categories are deprived of the relaxation of 5% marks at masters' level.
8. The blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons belonging to SC & ST category are in any case enjoying the benefit of 5% relaxation in marks obtained at the master's level for appearing in the NET examination conducted by the UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled at par with SC & ST disabled would bring parity amongst all persons with disabilities irrespective of their vertical categories."
8. Thus, insofar as U.G.C. is concerned, this Court in the
order 19.03.2002 observed that nothing survives for consideration and the
matter is disposed of as against U.G.C.
9. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the Union of India and
the State Governments to file their responses in the form of affidavits within
a period of four weeks, failing which it was observed that the Court may be compelled
to direct personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States
though the Court would like to avoid in making such a direction. Some of the
States have filed their responses and some have not.
10. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions of the 1995
Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years and thereby defeating
the very purpose of such law and legislative policy. The Union, States, Union
Territories and all those upon whom obligation has been cast under the 1995 Act
have to effectively implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the
governments in the matter such as this has to be proactive. In the matters of
providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude
of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or
lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do
wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy
of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special
attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently abled
citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity.
11. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act came
to be passed and yet we are confronted with the problem of implementation of
the 1995 Act in its letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union Territories
and other establishments to which it is made applicable.
12. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India,
informs us that insofar as Union of India is concerned, it has implemented the
provisions of the 1995 Act and the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching
posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of Section
33 of the 1995 Act has been done.
13. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be implemented in the
letter and spirit by the Central Government, State Governments and Union
Territories without any delay, if not implemented so far.
14. We, accordingly, direct the Central Government, State
Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act
immediately and positively by the end of 2014.
15. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India,
the Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators of Union Territories,
the Chief Commissioner of the Union of India and the Commissioners of the State
Governments and Union Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act
in all respects including with regard to visually disabled persons within the above
time.
16. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 1998, Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 430 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 6443 of
Writ Petitions and Appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment passed
today in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998.
2. No costs.
3. Interlocutory Applications for intervention and
impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998, in view of the above, do
not survive and they stand disposed of as such.
..............................J. (R.M. LODHA)
..............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
..............................J. (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI; MARCH 26,
2014
Read the judgement embedded below: