Court: Allahabd High Court, UP, India
Bench: Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Case No. : Writ - A No. - 18302 of 2021
Case title - Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher
Education) And 4 Others
Date of Order: 31.08.2022
Case Brief
The petitioner who is 56-year-old and a person with disability having 50% locomotor disability, had applied for the post of a Library Peon at a Government Degree College in Saharanpur. The essential qualifications for the said post prescribed were Class V pass and ability to ride cycle.
He was called for an interview, however, in the interview, the petitioner was not evaluated and he was purportedly asked to leave as he could not ride a bicycle. The principal forced the petitioner to ride a bicycle though he expressed he could ride a tricycle with equal efficiency. Subsequently, a higher educational qualification (for the post of Library Peon) of High School was insisted and since the petitioner did not hold that qualification, he was excluded.
The petitioner thus moved to the High Court claiming the violation of his rights and alleging humiliation caused to him, mainly by the then Principal of the Government Degree College, who interviewed him. He also alleged hostile discrimination having been practised by the State respondents and a complete violation of his special rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
He also argued that only to deprive him of an opportunity of employment, the selection process was stalled and higher educational qualification (than that possessed by the petitioner), was pressed so that the petitioner could be excluded from the zone of consideration.
The petitioner also had escalated the issue and lodged complaints, as a result, the Regional Employment Exchange (Divyangjan), Meerut Division instituted an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioner. It submitted report dated 23.11.2007 confirming the allegations as true.
Thereafter the court/office of State Commissioner (Divyangjan), exercising powers vested under Section 82 of the Old Act directed the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, to institute a magisterial enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the magisterial enquiry was conducted and its report submitted on 09.09.2019. In that, the Magistrate found the fact allegation made by the petitioner to be correct.
Also, upon receipt of direction issued by the court/office of State Commissioner (Divyangjan) dated 23.05.2019, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, acting as the Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, made his own enquiry and passed an order dated 30.11.2019, confirming the allegations of the petitioner as true and recommending action agaisnt respondents.
At that stage and in view of the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Saharanpur, the petitioner withdrew his earlier writ petition No. 17917 of 2007, in belief of appointment thus assured to him.
However, the above order was assailed by the then Principal of the Government Degree College, Deoband, Saharanpur, in Writ – A No. 1975 of 2020 (Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.). It transpires, in the course of those proceedings, office of the District Magistrate/Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, vide further order dated 17.02.2020 withdrew in entirety its earlier order dated 30.11.2019.
Thus the petitioner again approached this court with the present petiton at a delayed stage.
Court Order
The Court, affirming the importance of human dignity, the granted a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh as compensation to the petitioner. While partly alowing the petition of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Gupta, the court remarked, "The amount of compensation has been awarded to let the petitioner know, the
State may take time to hear & understand its citizen and his plight but, it is
neither deaf nor heartless as may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag
his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek justice. The citizen works at the
heart of the giant being the State is. Unless the heart beats freely, the being
cannot thrive."
The Court expressed that the state was liable to compensate its 'special
citizen' whose dignity was violated as he was humiliated at the instance of the State
authorities, for no fault of his. The Court also emphasized that the State and its
functionaries had failed to protect him, and the act of humiliation was against the
mandate of the Constitution.
"...the State and its functionaries have not only failed a special citizen but also
violated his fundamental right to life and liberty - for what worth is human
existence if it is denuded of dignity and respect deserving its cherished
existence. Deprived of dignity, liberty is a sea-shell washed to the shore, dead
and of ornate value for others but worthless to the being that used to live within
it," the Court further observed.
The Court also added that the respondents are generally at fault in not providing
for identification and reservation of adequate posts for persons with a locomotor
disability at Government Degree College at Deoband, Saharanpur. The Court called it "most disturbing" that instead of apprising him of the fact
regarding non-availability of reservation, he was unfairly asked to ride a bicycle which
he obviously could not.
In any case, the Court opined, in absence of a specification of 'bicycle' in the
advertisement, the petitioner should have been allowed to ride a 'tricycle' which also
qualifies as a cycle. In other words, the Court clarified, that if otherwise eligible, the
petitioner should have been allowed to compete as a General Category candidate.
The court directed the State to pay the petitioner, a lump-sum compensation assessed
at Rs. 5,00,000/- directly into his Savings Bank Account within a period of three
months.
Read the order embedded below: