Post-Wise Identification Within 1% Reservation For Visually Impaired Candidates (Low Vision & Blind) Is Valid For Safety Reasons : Delhi HC

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them. Background FactsAn advertisement dated 23.02.2019 was issued for 10,734 Level-1 posts in various posts of the Western Railways. It was issued as per the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), read with The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (RPWD Rules) and various departmental executive instructions. Out of the total 10,734 posts, 171 posts were reserved for Persons with Visual Impairment (VI) under Section 34(1)(a) of the RPWD Act. The petitioners were 100% visually impaired. Therefore, they were fully qualified and accordingly applied under the reserved category.The CEN contained an Annexure A, which identified posts post-wise and department-wise as suitable for benchmark disabilities. Out of the 17 categories of posts notified, only 5 posts were identified as suitable for both Blind and Low Vision (B & LV) candidates (such as Assistant Workshop, Hospital Assistant, Assistant Works, etc.); 6 posts were identified as suitable only for Low Vision (LV) candidates; and the remaining 6 posts (e.g., Track Maintainer, Assistant Pointsman, Assistant Bridge) were declared not suitable for any visually impaired person.The petitioners participated in the recruitment process and cleared the Computer-Based Test (CBT). They scored above the cut-off mark prescribed for VI candidates. Hence, they were called for document verification and medical examination. However, the petitioners' names were not included in the three provisional panels released by the Western Railway. They claimed that despite scoring higher than other selected candidates, they were denied appointment. They contended that the majority of posts were classified as suitable only for LV candidates, excluding completely blind applicants. They contended that 86 out of 171 VI-reserved posts had been marked for only low vision candidates. Further no candidate inferior to them in merit was selected for posts open to blind candidates.Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal dismissed the OAs vide common judgment dated 16.07.2024. It was held that the petitioners were aware of the identification matrix at the time of applying and had participated in the process. It was also noted that no candidate lower in merit had been appointed against posts identified for the blind. The Tribunal further observed that identification of posts under Section 33 is a distinct and lawful exercise. Further that the Railways' decision to exclude blind candidates from certain posts involving safety-critical duties was not arbitrary.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, challenging the legality of post-wise classification and the validity of identification of posts.It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondents had acted in violation of Section 34(1)(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The respondents unlawfully bifurcated the 1% reservation meant for persons with visual impairment into sub-categories of blindness and low vision, thereby excluding wholly blind candidates from a significant portion of the reserved posts. It was further submitted that the action of the respondents in identifying 85 out of 171 posts as suitable only for low vision candidates and not for blind candidates, was contrary to the principle of equal treatment under the Act. It was also contended that the DEPwD OM dated 4 March 2015, had identified various Railway posts as suitable for both blind and low vision candidates. There was no fresh valid identification before the issuance of CEN No. 01/2019 that could justify the exclusion of blind persons from certain posts.On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that there was no violation of the RPWD Act, 2016, as they had duly reserved 171 posts out of 10,734 for visually impaired (VI) candidates. They complied with the 1% reservation required under Section 34(1)(a). It was submitted that the petitioners had misconstrued the process as “bifurcation” whereas, the classification of posts was a lawful exercise of post identification under Section 33 of the Act. It authorises the government to determine the suitability of specific posts for each category of benchmark disabilities. Section 34 obligates the government to reserve 1% of the total number of vacancies to be filled for candidates with blindness and LV.It was further submitted that the identification of posts in Annexure A of the CEN was done based on operational...

Post-Wise Identification Within 1% Reservation For Visually Impaired Candidates (Low Vision & Blind) Is Valid For Safety Reasons : Delhi HC

Namdev Singh

Tags