Supreme Court Stays Telangana HC Decision Which Allowed 40% Benchmark Disability Instead of 70% For Extending Preferential Treatment

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “The benchmark disability is prescribed at 70% for those otherwise covered by The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“2016 Act”). It is then submitted by the learned senior counsel that a large number of disabled people particularly in the Education Department have secured appointment under the erstwhile The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”). Therefore, the higher benchmark criteria of 70% disability, had to be prescribed in the State of Telangana for preferential allotment by the Allotment Committee. If such a higher benchmark criteria is not stipulated (above the 40% prescribed in the 1995 Act), most benefit of preferential allotment will be captured by those who are covered under the 1995 Act and all the others with equally pressing needs, will not get any consideration although their needs in comparison, may be much more pressing… Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.”

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Petitioner.

The Counsel referred to the notification issued on December 12, 2021, by the General Administration Department, Government of Telangana to point out that preference for allocation of posting upon bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is a mammoth exercise.

He said to make a fair consideration for those who might be in need for a particular place of posting on account of medical and other grounds, Clause 22 of the Appendix attached to the notification covers the same and the Allotment Committee is required to consider the seniority of the concerned incumbent and then work out the criteria of giving preference to those suffering a certain degree of disability.

The Respondent herein, a school teacher, has a 68% disability and filed a petition before the High Court for directions to the Petitioner herein to reconsider his allotment.

It was further submitted that the 1995 Act (now the 2016 Act) primarily deals with recruitment and has nothing to do with the posting of a disabled category person as is evident from Section 20(5) of the 2016 Act.

Accordingly, the Court issued the notice and stayed the order passed by the Telangana High Court.

Cause Title: The Commissioner and Director of School Education v. Chinta Nataraj & Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, Advocates Devina Sehgal, S. Uday Bhanu and Gursimar Singh