Rights Must Be Balanced With Public Interest: Delhi High Court Upholds Division Of Railway Posts Between Low Vision & Blind Aspirants

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the action of Railways in bifurcating the posts reserved for visually impaired candidates into two categories— one which could be held by both low vision (LV) and blind candidates and the other which could be held only by LV but not blind candidates.In doing so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul rejected the contention that candidates suffering from blindness and LV constitute one category and that Right of Persons With Disabilities Act does not permit further bifurcation or sub division of vacancies.It observed, “Reservation under Section 34 is of vacancies; identification under Section 33 is of posts. From among the vacancies reserved under Section 34(1), for the various categories of disabilities, post-wise identification of categories of persons suffering from specific physical disabilities suitable to the post, can be carried out by the appropriate government under Section 34(1).”The bench added,“Reservation does not by itself create a right to appointment, and that it is only if, after post-based identification, suitable posts are available, that the reserved candidate has a right even to consideration for appointment against such identified post…Such post-wise identification, from among the reserved vacancies, is, therefore, statutorily permissible. It does not convert the exercise of reservation for persons with disabilities from a vacancy-based to a post-based exercise.”In the case at hand, Petitioner's, 100% visually impaired, were aggrieved by restriction of certain reserved posts in Railways only for LV.After the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their petitions, they approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction.Petitioners contended that Section 34 of the RPWD Act does not permit further bifurcation or sub division of vacancies to be reserved for candidates suffering from blindness or LV. Candidates suffering from blindness and LV constitute one category under Section 34(1)(a), and 1% of vacancies were required to be reserved for such candidates, it was contended.The Respondents on the other hand argued they were not precluded from identifying, out of the vacancies reserved for any particular category of disability, posts which would be suitable candidates suffering from particular categories of disabilities. Reservation and identification constitute two distinct exercises, both of which are envisaged by the RPWD Act, it was contended. At the outset, the High Court noted that the posts to which the petitioners aspire are not desk jobs. It found that the posts involved handling machinery or other such activities which a person who is completely blind would be unable to perform.Moreover, when the posts were in the Railways Department, which caters to the public at large on a daily basis, the Court said it has to take into account overwhelming public interest when handing over posts to blind aspirants.The bench observed,“While it is our avowed constitutional goal to make every effort at promoting inclusivity of persons who are differently abled, we have also to bear in mind the element of public interest that pervades every such consideration. The appointment of a person who, owing to one reason or the other, is physically unable to manage the post, in the Railways, can result in untold public harm and may possibly also endanger the life and limb of the public who use the Railways. There is an overwhelming element of public interest involved, which has to be balanced against the rights of the petitioners to inclusion in the mainstream.”The Court agreed that Section 34 obligates the government to reserve 1% of the total number of vacancies to be filled for candidates with blindness and LV.Thereafter, it added under Section 33(i), the appropriate government is vested with the power of identifying posts in the establishment which can be held by persons having specific benchmark disabilities.“Section 33(i) of the RPWD Act specifically empowers the appropriate government to “identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34”. Section 33, therefore, in a sense follows Section 34…The exercise of reservation continues to remain a vacancy based exercise; it is only the exercise of identification from the reserved vacancies, of posts which are suitable, or not suitable, for persons suffering from particular types of disabilities, which is post-based,” the Court held.As such, the petitions were dismissed.Appearance: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv for Petitioners; Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, Advs. for UOI.Case title: Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756Case no.: W.P.(C) 9994/2024Click here to download judgment

Rights Must Be Balanced With Public Interest: Delhi High Court Upholds Division Of Railway Posts Between Low Vision & Blind Aspirants

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Kapil Dhyani

Rights Must Be Balanced With Public Interest: Delhi High Court Upholds Division Of Railway Posts Between Low Vision & Blind Aspirants

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers