Rejecting Physically Disabled Individual's Candidature Citing No Vacancy Defeats RPwD Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rejecting a physically disabled individual's candidature citing no vacancy for such individuals defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a plea filed by the Delhi Police against CAT's order directing it to reconsider the case of a man, who...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rejecting a physically disabled individual's candidature citing no vacancy for such individuals defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a plea filed by the Delhi Police against CAT's order directing it to reconsider the case of a man, who was 75% physically disabled, for compassionate appointment after his father's death against any available vacancy in the prescribed quota.
His father was posted as Multi- Tasking Staff (MTS) with the Delhi Police since 1978. He expired in 2013, leaving behind his wife and the son.
The case of the son was rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that no vacancy in the MTS category was available for a physically challenged candidate.
Rapping the Delhi Police for its conduct, the Court said that such a situation of there being no vacancy for physically disabled persons reflected a lack of awareness and sensitivity towards the principles of reasonable accommodation and inclusion.
“Such an action of the petitioners cannot withstand the test of fairness, for it is manifestly arbitrary and antithetical to the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience that animate our constitutional framework. It defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which was promulgated to bring effect to the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” the Court said.
It added that the son's candidature remained under evaluation for over ten years without any meaningful consideration.
The Court said that being a person with seventy-five percent disability, the son warranted a higher degree of empathy, reasonable accommodation and responsive action from the Delhi Police, which was expected to make due efforts to consider him for compassionate appointment.
“Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners' approach in considering the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment was arbitrary and devoid of the compassion that the law mandates in such cases. Despite categorical directions from the learned Tribunal to reassess the respondent's claim in accordance with the rules and on its independent merits, guided by the spirit of compassion, the Screening Committee constituted by the petitioners failed to meaningfully implement those directions,” the Court said.
It directed the Screening Committee to reconsider the case of the som for compassionate appointment and directed that necessary orders be issued within 8 weeks.
Title: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS v. AMIT KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1389