Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) received a requisition from the State Government for 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – TNPC proposed to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf – State Government by order dated 08.08.2014 communicated the decision to go ahead with the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf with the consultation of the High Court – Pursuant thereto, TNPC issued notification inviting applications for direct recruitment – Appellant appeared in selection process under partially blind category – Disability Certificate issued to the appellant mentioned his disability as 70% – Written examination was conducted – Name of the appellant was not included in the list of successful candidates – Writ petition filed by the appellant – High Court held that as per government order dated 08.08.2014 and Notification issued by TNPC partially blind with 40%-50% disability were only eligible to participate in the selection process – On appeal, held: The advertisement-notification clearly provided that post of Civil Judge was identified as suitable for partially deaf/partially blind/ortho categories of differently abled persons with 40%-50% disability – Certificate of disability submitted by the appellant mentioned appellant having disability of 70%, which made him ineligible for the post of Civil Judge advertised by notification, since the disability required for the post was only 40%-50% – High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellant – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons in a notification for recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) issued by the Public Service Commission – Validity of – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) issued notification for the 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and announced 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons – Held: Judicial Service being part of Public Service, the State in consultation with the High court is fully empowered to lay down the eligibilities for selection on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – The condition of having 40%-50% disability was prescribed by the Public Service Commission as per the Government Order issued by the State after consultation with the High Court – There was consensus in the view of State Government, Public Service Commission and the High Court that partially blind and partially deaf persons suffering with disability be allowed to participate in the recruitment, who has disability of 40%-50% – Thus, condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons cannot be said to be invalid – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007.
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – s.33 – Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) issued notification for 162 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and announced 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf for the selection in question – Appellant contended that Act, 1995 does not provide for any such restriction that the eligibility is of only those who suffer from disability of 40%-50% – Held: s.33 of the Act, 1995 requires that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three percent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision – The present is not a case where the respondent has not reserved the post for partial disability as required by s.33 of the Act, 1995 – Thus, requirement of reservation as mandated by s.33 is clearly fulfilled – The State, which is appointing authority of Public Service in consultation with the High Court with reference to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) can very well lay down the essential eligibilities and requirement for the post – When the State, High Court and Public Service Commission are of the view that disability, which is suitable for appointment on the post of Civil Judge should be between 40%-50%, the said prescription does not violate any statutory provision nor contravene any of the provisions of the Act, 1995 – It is well within the power of appointing authority to prescribe eligibility looking to the nature of the job, which is to be performed by holder of a post.
Constitution of India – Arts. 154, 233, 234, 235 and Entry 41 List II of the Seventh Schedule – State Government, if competent to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Held: Judicial Service being Public service is included in Entry 41 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution – State having competence to legislate on Entry 41, i.e. State public Services; State Public Service Commission, it has also executive power under Art. 154 of the Constitution of India – Thus, the State Government is fully competent to take any executive decision with regard to recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), supplementing the Statutory Rules, 2007 – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the appellant who was suffering with disability of 70% (visual impairing) was eligible to participate in the selection as per notification dated 26.08.2014 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ?
1. The Government Order dated 08.08.2014 communicated the decision of the State Government taken with consultation of the High Court to go ahead with the selection to the post of Civil Judge notifying the percentage of disability as 40-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for the selection for 162 posts of Civil Judge. [Para 13][966-B-C]
2. The advertisement dated 26.08.2014 clearly provided that post of Civil Judge has been identified as suitable for partially deaf/partially blind/ortho categories of differently abled persons (40%-50% disability). In the online application submitted by petitioner in the column of percentage of disability, he has only mentioned “more than 40%”. The certificate of disability, which was submitted by the appellant as required by Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 as well as the advertisement mentioned in Column (3) “(3). Percentage of disability in his/her case is 70%”. Thus, according to own case of the appellant, he was suffering with disability of 70%, which made him ineligible for the post of Civil Judge advertised by notification dated 26.08.2014 since the disability required for the post was only 40%-50%. Thus, the certificate submitted by the appellant that he suffers from 70% disability, he was ineligible for the post advertised vide notification dated 26.08.2014. The issue is answered accordingly. [Para 14][966-G-H; 967-A-B]
3. During the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed by the appellant to quash the Government letter dated 08.08.2014 which amendment application was allowed by the High Court and even in the amendment application filed by the appellant the notification dated 26.08.2014 issued by the TNPC was not challenged. The appellant cannot be allowed to question the condition of eligibility with regard to partial blindness i.e. 40%-50% when he failed to challenge the advertisement dated 26.08.2014 providing for the said requirement. The appellant applied in pursuance of the above advertisement and participated in the written examination and when he was not called for oral test, he filed writ petition. It was under the interim order of the High Court that he was permitted to participate in oral test but the High Court by interim order had directed not to declare the result of the appellant. The appellant having failed to challenge Clause 4(F) of the notification dated 26.08.2014, he cannot be allowed to challenge the condition of 40%-50% partial blindness. [Para 16][967-F-H; 968-A]
Whether the condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons is a valid condition?
4. The Government order dated 08.08.2014 addressed to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission states that the High Court has considered the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission’s letter dated 04.08.2014 and accepts the proposal to go ahead with the selection for the posts of Civil Judge notifying the percentage of disability as 40- 50% for partially blind and partially deaf. Thus, the Government Order was issued after due consultation of the High Court, which had agreed with providing for percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). [Para 17][968-B-C]
5. The State Government has consulted both the Public Service Commission as well as the High Court in reference to appointment of disabled persons on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). There is consensus in the view of State Government, Public Service Commission and the High Court that partially blind and partially deaf persons suffering with disability be allowed to participate in the recruitment, who has disability of 40%-50%. The High Court being well aware about the requirements for the appointment in the judicial service and it being guardian of subordinate judiciary, has a say in the eligibility of a person, who seeks appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Judicial service being part of Public Service, the State in consultation with the High court is fully empowered to lay down the eligibilities for selection on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Government Order dated 08.08.2014 supplements the Rules, 2007 and in no manner contravene any of the provisions of the Rules. The condition of having 40%-50% disability was prescribed by the Public Service Commission as per the Government Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu after consultation with the High Court. The above condition in no manner can be said to be invalid. [Para 35][977-E-H]
Whether the decision of the State Government vide letter dated 08.08.2014 providing that physically disabled persons that is partially deaf and partially blind to the extent of 40%-50% disability are alone eligible, is in breach of the provisions of 1995 Act and deserves to be set aside?
6. Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 requires that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from Blindness or low vision. [Para 36][978-B]
7. The legal position with regard to reservation of posts for persons with disability is well established that every appropriate Government is obliged to reserve posts for persons or class of persons with disability. In the present case, concern is with partial disability. The present is not a case where the respondent has not reserved the post for partial disability as required by Section 33 of the Act, 1995. Thus, requirement of reservation as mandated by Section 33 is clearly fulfilled. The issue is regarding eligibility of appellant to participate in the selection and as to whether the requirement in the advertisement that only those, who suffer from disability of 40%-50% are eligible, is contrary to the Act, 1995 or is in breach of any statutory provision. The State, which is appointing authority of Public Service in consultation with the High Court with reference to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) can very well lay down the essential eligibilities and requirement for the post. When the State, High Court and Public Service Commission are of the view that disability, which is suitable for appointment on the post of Civil Judge should be between 40%-50%, the said prescription does not violate any statutory provision nor contravene any of the provisions of the Act, 1995. It is well within the power of appointing authority to prescribe eligibility looking to the nature of the job, which is to be performed by holder of a post. [Para 39][979-E-H; 980-A]
8. The reasons as given above by the respondent No.3 fully justified the requirement of disability to the extent of 50% which is reasonable, just and fair. High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussions, the prescription of disability to the extent of 40%-50% for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was valid and does not contravene any of the provisions of the Act, 1995 or any other statutory provision. [Para 41][981-A-B]
Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and
Another (2010) 7 SCC 626 : [2010] 7 SCR 851; Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others (2013) 10 SCC 772 : [2013] 9 SCR 1023 – relied on.
State of Bihar and Another v. Bal Mukund Sah and Others (2000) 4 SCC 640 : [2000] 2 SCR 299 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.