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 Facts

An 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 requirements like the nature of duties involved in Railway jobs, relating to track maintenance, electrical/mechanical roles. It was contended that appointing completely blind candidates to such posts could endanger their safety. It was also contended that the petitioners were fully aware of this classification at the time of applying and had participated in the recruitment process without any protest. It was submitted that no candidate who was inferior to the petitioners in merit was selected against posts identified for both blind and low vision. Further only those with low vision were selected for posts that were explicitly marked as not suitable for blindness.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioners had participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2019, which clearly specified the identification of posts suitable for blind, low vision, or not suitable for visually impaired candidates. It was held by the Court that the Annexure A to the CEN was based on a duly conducted identification exercise, taking into account operational feasibility and safety requirements. It was noted that public safety and job functionality were legitimate concerns in identifying certain posts as not suitable for blind candidates.

It was observed by the court that the petitioners consciously participated only for being considered for recruitment against the posts specified as suitable for them, vide Annexure A to the CEN. Therefore, once the candidates were put on notice, vide Annexure A regarding the posts against which they would be eligible to compete, and participated without objection, they cannot challenge the legality of Annexure A, having failed to make the cut.

It was further observed that reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016, and identification of posts under Section 33, serve different purposes. The post-based identification is a valid mechanism to ensure suitability and safety in employment. It was clarified that Section 34 provides for 1% reservation for persons with visual impairment, but that does not automatically entitle a blind candidate to be considered for all posts, unless the post is first identified as suitable under Section 33.

The case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v Shakuntala Shukla was relied upon wherein it was held that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not favourable. Further the case of Union of India v S. Vinodh Kumar was also relied upon wherein it was held that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.

It was observed by the court that the petitioners cannot lay a claim to the posts which, as per Annexure A were suitable only for the candidates who suffered from LV, and were not suitable for blind candidates. It was further observed that the identification of posts for low vision alone does not violate the RPWD Act and is a valid classification under Section 33, made in the public interest. It was held by the court that there is no illegality in Annexure A to the CEN. Further no one less meritorious to the petitioners was appointed against the posts identified as suitable for the blind. Accordingly, it was held by the Court that the entire selection process was lawful, and the identification of posts was valid.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions were dismissed. In conclusion, the court upheld post-wise identification of vacancies for low vision candidates within the 1% reservation quota under the RPWD Act, citing public safety and operational feasibility.

Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors

Case No.: W.P.(C) 10511/2024, CM APPLs. 43205/2024 & 43206/2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Prashant Singh, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents: Iram Majid, CGSC with Mohd. Suboor and M. Seham

Click Here To Read/Download The Order

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}