Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a practicing advocate with 70% visual impairment, applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu pursuant to a notification dated 26.08.2014 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC). The notification, based on a State Government letter dated 08.08.2014, restricted eligibility for partially blind candidates to those with 40%-50% disability. The appellant, having 70% disability, was not included in the list of candidates called for viva voce. He filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 05.06.2015, holding that the appellant was ineligible. The Supreme Court considered whether the condition of 40%-50% disability was valid under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The Court noted that the post of Civil Judge had been identified under Section 32 of the Act without any disability percentage restriction, and the exemption under Section 33 proviso applied only to complete blindness and complete impairment. The Court held that the restriction of 40%-50% disability was arbitrary, as it was not based on any expert committee determination. The Court emphasized that the High Court and State Government could not unilaterally peg the disability percentage without expert input. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed the TNPC to consider the appellant's candidature based on his performance in the written test and interview, subject to his meeting other eligibility criteria.
Headnote
A) Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Identification of Posts - Section 32 - Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was identified as suitable for orthopedically disabled persons under Section 32 - The identification did not restrict disability percentage - Any restriction on disability percentage must be based on expert committee determination, not arbitrary decision by State Government (Paras 2-3, 11-13) B) Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Reservation - Section 33 - Exemption under proviso to Section 33 was issued only for complete blindness and complete impairment - The appellant with 70% visual impairment was not covered by the exemption - The condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind candidates was not supported by any expert assessment and was arbitrary (Paras 3, 11-13) C) Service Law - Judicial Service - Eligibility - Notification dated 26.08.2014 imposing 40%-50% disability condition for partially blind candidates for Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Held that such condition was invalid as it was not based on any expert committee report and contravened the scheme of the 1995 Act - The appellant with 70% disability was eligible to participate in the selection (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is valid under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and whether the appellant with 70% visual impairment was eligible to participate in the selection.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Madras High Court dated 05.06.2015 set aside. The condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is held invalid. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is directed to consider the appellant's candidature based on his performance in the written test and interview, subject to his meeting other eligibility criteria.
Law Points
- Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
- 1995 requires identification of posts suitable for disabled persons
- Section 33 mandates reservation for identified posts
- proviso to Section 33 allows exemption only for certain categories
- any restriction on disability percentage must be based on expert determination
- not arbitrary decision
- notification imposing 40%-50% disability condition without expert committee is invalid
