State Must Ensure That Persons With Disabilities Are Not Deprived From Public Employment On Hyper-Technical Grounds: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the State is under an obligation to ensure that persons with disabilities are not deprived from public employment despite their eligibility and merit to hold the post on hyper-technical grounds.

The Jodhpur Bench emphasized thus in a batch of special appeals involving controversy following the recruitment drive initiated by the State which was decided by the Single Judge.

A Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed, “The intention of the legislation in bringing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is to ensure full participation of the people with disabilities in public employment. A welfare state is under an obligation to ensure that the person suffering from disabilities should not be deprived from public employment despite their possessing eligibility and merit to hold the post on hyper-technical grounds or for ipse-dixit reasons.”

The Bench added that all-round efforts are required to be made to ensure that no opportunity is left out for integration of persons with special abilities into the social main stream to achieve the ultimate object of enacting special legislations viz., all persons with special abilities shall get a dignified life full of equal opportunities without any discrimination.

AAG N.S. Rajpurohit represented the appellants while Advocate Yashpal Khileree represented the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

A recruitment drive was initiated by the State for the posts of Nurse Grade-II and Women Health Worker via advertisements. As per the said advertisements, 3% of the posts were kept reserved for the category of persons suffering from 40% or more disability in one leg (PH-OL). The respondents being eligible and desirous for appointment on the advertised posts submitted their application forms in the Office of Director Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. After following the procedure prescribed under the advertisements, the appellant-State published the provisional merit/selection lists. The grievance of the respondents was that their names were not included in the provisional merit/select list, though the candidates who had secured less marks than them were included in the lists.

The respondents possessed requisite qualifications for the advertised posts along with disabilities certificate(s) issued by a competent authority of the State, indicating their respective disabilities. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they approached the Single Bench of the High Court via writ petitions. The Single Judge held that the State was not justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondents owing to additional deformity in the second leg/other body part. The appellant-State was directed to prepare a fresh select list for PH category and place the eligible respondents (after verifying their documents) at appropriate place in the select list in the concerned category and thereupon, issue appointment orders in their favour. Challenging this, the State was before the Division Bench.

The High Court in the above regard noted, “We find that the action(s) of appellant-State has resulted in exclusion of eligible and meritorious candidates belonging to the category of “persons with special abilities” and, therefore, the same is contrary to the purpose and object which the legislature intended to achieve by bringing these special beneficial enactments, that is, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and equality of opportunity.”

The Court elucidated that the language of Section 2(t) of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Section 2(r) and Rule 2(s) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is clear and unambiguous that reservation is to be extended to all the persons having disability to the extent of 40% or more.

“In the opinion of this Court, if a person is suffering from disability to a certain extent in other leg or body part the same by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed to mean that the candidate shall not be fit to perform his/her duty. Partial deformity/ shortening/ weakening of muscular strength in other body part would not render a person ineligible to be appointed on the advertised post, particularly when he/she is capable of performing all the duties and functions attached to the advertised post”, it further said.

The Court, therefore, declared the action of the appellant-State in denying appointment to the respondents under the PH category (PH-OL category) as bad in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the impugned order and directed the State to comply with the necessary exercise within two months.

Cause Title- State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Sunita (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:34081-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: AAG N.S. Rajpurohit

Respondents: Advocates Yashpal Khileree, Vinita, Vivek Fiorda, Jayram Saran, Bharat Singh Rathore, Rishabh Tayal, Jitendra Choudhary, Muskan Jangid, Priyanka Bhootra, Shridhar Mehta, R.S. Choudhary, Ashok Choudhary, J.K. Suthar, Pragya Singh, and Narendra Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment