Sikkim High Court Directs State To Consider Sub-Classification Within 'Blindness & Low-Vision Disability' Quota In Public Employment
The Sikkim High Court has directed the State Government to consider providing sub-classification within the "Blindness and Low-Vision" category in public employment, observing that treating unequals as equals undermines substantive equality. Applying the principle of reasonable accommodation, the bench of Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque in his order observed:"The inherent differences in...
The Sikkim High Court has directed the State Government to consider providing sub-classification within the "Blindness and Low-Vision" category in public employment, observing that treating unequals as equals undermines substantive equality.
Applying the principle of reasonable accommodation, the bench of Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque in his order observed:
"The inherent differences in the nature and extent of disabilities between blind and low-vision candidates bear directly upon their respective capacities to compete, particularly in the context of access to public employment opportunities. Treating unequals as equals, in such circumstances, risks undermining the very objective of equality under the law. Thus, the court proposes to issue direction for consideration of differing needs in the light of law to be stated hereafter...
While the law classifies blindness and low-vision under a single category for the purpose of reservation, such classification does not mandate identical treatment within that category. Classification into one group is for the purpose of fixing a ceiling limit of one percent to have an outer limit of reservation for such a group. Grouping them together does not preclude differentiated consideration, particularly when their physiological conditions and functional capacities are inherently distinct. A person with low vision, though impaired, retains some degree of sight and may perform certain functions with difficulty. In contrast, a blind person suffers from a total absence of vision and faces a qualitatively different level of limitation".
The court underscored that in the context of public employment–under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the crucial consideration is whether blind and low-vision persons can be treated as equals in terms of opportunity.
It observed that if individuals with inherently unequal functional capacities are made to compete on the same footing, it would amount to "treating unequals as equals, thereby undermining the guarantee of substantive equality".
The court said that the principle of reasonable accommodation requires that differences are acknowledged and addressed; failure to do so would reduce equality to a mere formality and defeat the very purpose of disability law, which is to ensure meaningful inclusion and uphold dignity.
The court said that it is the State's responsibility to "operationalize these principles" in public employment. Observing that sub-classification was permitted the court said:
"While the law provides for a broad classification, it does not restrict the State from evolving appropriate mechanisms for sub-classification within that category. Such sub classification may be based on merit, functional capacity, or other relevant criteria, so long as it serves to balance competing interests and promote fairness...It is well established that sub-classification is constitutionally permissible, as recognized in various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to consider the issue of sub-classification within the category in light of the above principles within a period of three months".
The petitioner, a person with 100% blindness, applied for the Lower Division Clerk post advertised in 2017 and later in 2022, where certain posts were reserved for Persons with disabilities, under the combined category of Blindness and Low Vision.
Although the petitioner qualified the written examination and viva voce, he was not selected. He contended that candidates with low vision were consistently preferred over those with complete blindness, resulting in discrimination. He argued that grouping both categories ignored the greater disadvantage faced by fully blind candidates. He thus sought separation of the low-vision candidates from the category of blind and low-vision.
The bench noted that although the respondents were more meritorious than the petitioner, it chose to analyse whether homogenised classification may result in the denial of substantive equality.
The bench noted that the nature and extent of blindness and low vision are distinct and bear a direct correlation to their capacities to compete, particularly in public employment. The bench noted that the law treating unequals as equals undermines the concept of equality under the law.
The bench further delved into the origin of the concept of reasonable accommodation and indirect discrimination. The bench noted that reasonable accommodation emphasised making necessary and appropriate adjustments based on the specific needs of individuals with disabilities. The bench highlighted that true equality cannot be achieved through uniform treatment alone, but rather by addressing the situation and circumstances of each and accommodating appropriately.
On the issue of indirect discrimination, the court noted
"A rule that is neutral on its face and uniformly applied may still be discriminatory if its practical effect imposes a disadvantage on a person because of religion or another protected ground. This was recognized as adverse effect discrimination".
The bench held that once such indirect discrimination is surfaced, the employer has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to accommodate. The same, according to the court, requires 'sincere and practical efforts' to accommodate the individual without casuing excessive cost or serious disruption.
Further, the bench examined the medical difference between blindness and low vision, observing that total blindness is defined as "severe or profound loss of vision, where a person has little or no usable sight even after best possible treatment or correction". Whereas, the court noted that low vision was defined as "partial but significant vision loss where some useful sight remains, but ordinary glasses, contact lenses medicine, or surgery cannot fully restore vision".
Subsequently, the bench examined the issue of the homogenised category of blindness and low vision. The bench noted that the disability law recognises the rights of both blind and low vision persons to live with dignity.
The bench emphasised that dignity and disability were fundamentally interconnected concepts, noting that despite the law classifying blindness and low vision under one category, it does not mandate identical treatment.
The court observed that the classification into one group was to fix a ceiling limit of reservation, but grouping these two categories does not preclude differentiated consideration. The court observed that both categories face their own limitations and functional capacities. Therefore, they cannot be made to compete on the same footing, as the same would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The bench emphaized that while the law provides for a board classification, it does not limit the State from drafting appropriate mechanisms for sub-classification within the category.
Asking the State to consider the issue within 3 months in light of the principles enumerated in the order, the court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Ravi Tamang v State of Sikkim [W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2022]
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate N Rai with Advocate Yozan Rai
For State: Additional Advocate General Zangpo Sherpa with Advocate Mohan Sharma
For Sikkim Public Service Commission: Advocate Bhusan Nepal
For Private Candidates: Senior Advocate Jorgay Namka with Advocate Mingma Lhamu Sherpa
For Union: Deputy Solicitor General Sangita Pradhan with Advocates Natasha Pradhan and Sittal Balmiki