Concept Of ‘Seeing’ As Functional Attribute Can’t Be Restricted To Ocular Functionality Of Eye: Delhi High Court In Blind Candidate’s Plea Against AAI

While dealing with the question of “Can the blind see?”, the Delhi High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by a blind candidate against the Airports Authority of India (AAI).

The Court was of the view that the concept of ‘seeing’ as a functional attribute cannot be restricted to the ocular functionality of an eye.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held, “In assessing the satisfaction, or otherwise, of the “functional requirement of seeing”, therefore, this basic physiological reality has to be borne in mind by the respondents. The concept of “seeing”, inasmuch as it is stipulated, in the DEPWD Notification as well as in the Advertisement, as a functional attribute, cannot be restricted to the ocular functionality of the eye. If, therefore, despite not being possessed of the ocular ability which enables the recording of images on the retinal wall of the eye, a candidate is nonetheless able to perceive what is before him, to the extent it is necessary to discharge the function of JE (Law), he has to be regarded as being possessed of the functional attribute of “sight”, as envisaged and required by the DEPWD Notification and the Advertisement.”

The Bench observed that the function of interpreting and understanding the image that was recorded on the retina is performed by the brain and the power of cognition, discernment and understanding, therefore, vests in the brain, not in the eye.

“We, in this batch of cases, are faced with the question – Can the blind see? … Law, however, has a habit of complicating the simplest of issues”, it remarked.

Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while SC Digvijay Rai and Sr. PC Vinay Yadav appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Factual Background

An advertisement was issued in 2023 by the AAI, inviting applications for various posts. Among them was the post of Junior Executive (Law), to which the Petitioner aspired. The advertisement also contained a Table identifying posts which were suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). Two vacancies were reserved for persons who were blind or suffered from low vision, and one was reserved for persons suffering from the disabilities envisaged in the Table under Category C. The Petitioner was blind and he applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Executive (Law). He disclosed the fact that he was blind in his application.

Consequently, he underwent the Computer Based Test (CBT) and was provisionally selected. During the document verification, the AAI issued an e-mail to the Petitioner, informing him that his selection was withheld for the said post for confirming whether he met the functional requirements. In the final result, the Petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of selected candidates. The Petitioner issued a further e-mail and the communication granted him a further opportunity to reassess his functional requirements. The reassessment took place and further e-mail informed him that the medical report certified that he could not perform work by seeing. As ‘seeing’ was one of the functional requirements stipulated for the post, the Petitioner’s candidature was cancelled. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The RPWD Act does not contain any provision which entitles the administration to stipulate “functional requirements” for posts which already stand identified as being suitable for being filled by persons possessing particular categories of disabilities. … That said, there can be no cavil with the proposition that every post has functional requirements. As Mr. Rai correctly submits, the post of a car driver would require the candidate to be able to see, in the gross physical sense. A person who is blind can obviously not be appointed as a car driver.”

The Court said that it cannot subscribe to a submission that all persons who possess the stipulated disabilities in the fourth column of the Table against any post, would, even if they did not possess the functional requirements envisaged in the third column of the said Table, be entitled to be appointed against the concerned post.

“We have often wondered, after observing them at their best, whether they are not more accomplished than many of their more “able-bodied” colleagues. Vision – or the lack of it – has certainly not stood in their way”, it remarked.

The Court held that only candidates who satisfied the said functional requirements would be entitled to appointment against the corresponding posts.

“We cannot, by judicial fiat, thrust, on the executive, persons who are functionally unsuitable for a post, under the aegis of promoting the objectives of the RPWD Act. Carried to its logical extremes, any such misadventure might result in throwing the executive machinery into disarray, which could, in turn, result in serious and irreparable adverse consequences to public interest”, it added.

The Court observed that the exercise of determination as to whether a particular candidate does, or does not, satisfy the functional requirement of the post, has to be left to the concerned selecting authority or establishment in which the candidate seeks appointment.

“The eye is a sense organ. It processes no power of cognition or discernment. It merely fulfils the function of recording of an image which is before it. The image is recorded on the retina, constituting the rear wall of the eye. That recorded image is then transmitted, through electrical signals, to the brain, via the optic nerve. … Expressed otherwise, the function of sight, which we otherwise attribute to the eye, is in fact largely performed by the brain. The eye acts, at the highest, as a recorder and transmitter”, it further noted.

The Court enunciated that the assessment of the satisfaction, by the candidate who is blind, or suffers from low vision, of the functional requirement of “seeing”, vis-à-vis the suitability of the said candidate for appointment as JE (Law) has, therefore, to be expansive, and not myopic.

“The assessment of individual candidates, regarding their suitability for appointment to the post of JE (Law) has, therefore, to take place in an enabling atmosphere, providing the necessary aids and assistive devices, and keeping in mind the duties to be discharged by the incumbent of the post of JE (Law)”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court also said that the manner in which the Petitioner has been declared unsuitable for appointment as JE (Law) is clearly unsustainable in law and resultantly, the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature, on the ground that he is unsuitable for appointment as JE (Law) for want of possessing the functional attribute of ‘seeing’, has to be set aside.

“Relief, in such a case, cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner participated in the selection process. Conformity with the constitutional mandate is the solemn duty of all, including the respondents. … We, therefore, are not inclined to reject the present petition on the ground that the petitioner participated in the selection process”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature.

Cause Title- Mudit Gupta v. Airports Authority of India and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9207-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta and Advocate Prashant Singh.

Respondents: SC Digvijay Rai, Sr. PC Vinay Yadav, GP Rahul Kumar Sharma, Advocates Archit Mishra, Ansh Kalra, Kamna Behrani, and Siddharth Gautam.

Click here to read/download the Judgment