Candidate Cannot Claim Appointment Under PwD Reservation Where Specific Disability Not Notified: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court held that the candidate cannot claim appointment against any post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that he was visually impaired when such kind of disability was not indicated for reservation in appointment to post.

The Orissa Public Service Commission filed a Writ Appeal against the order directing appointment of a visually-impaired candidate for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineers, when the said disability was not indicated for reservation in appointment of the said post.

A Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed, “The respondent cannot claim appointment against any post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that he is visually impaired when such kind of disability is not indicated for reservation in appointment to posts for Assistant Agriculture Engineer.”

Advocate Tarun Patnaik represented the Appellant, while Advocate S.K. Pradhan represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

A Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent seeking direction to be appointed as Assistant Agriculture Engineers in Group-B and the same was allowed by the High Court. Being aggrieved of the same, the Odisha Public Service Commission filed a Writ Appeal.

It was contended by the Commission that conditions mentioned in the advertisement and provisions of Persons With Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 were not taken into account by the Single Bench while deciding the Writ Petition.

The Petitioner-Respondent suffered from blindness to the extent 40% that comes within the definition/description of PwD category as he has 40% disability.

Court’s Observation

The issue before the Court was whether by exercising the power of judicial review the High Court has the power to issue direction to the Commission to declare the Respondent-writ petitioner to be a selected candidate under the PwD category, after giving a finding that the Petitioner-Respondent belongs to the category of person suffering from blindness or low vision with a further direction to intimate the requisitioning authority to do the needful in accordance with law.

With regard to Section 33 of the Persons With Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the Court held that reservation of posts under Section 33 was not for all categories of posts irrespective of the nature of work to be carried out.

“If the respondent wishes to get employed in Group-B posts under the State Government, the identified posts do not include the category of disability, suffered by respondent; as it only specifies one leg affected, one arm affected, partly deaf, both legs affected but not arms (Mobility not restricted) that does not include blindness up to 40%. Now, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority of the committee as notified under sections 32 and 33 of the Act, 1955 to apply any subjective/objective scrutiny”, the Court held.

Consequently, the High Court held that the Petitioner-Respondent was not eligible for appointment against the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer in terms of the advertisement.

The High Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner-Respondent cannot claim appointment against any post reserved for disabled candidates only for the reason that he is visually impaired when such kind of disability is not indicated for reservation in appointment to posts for Assistant Agriculture Engineer.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was disposed of.

Cause Title: Odisha Public Service Commission V. Biswajit Panda

Click here to read/download Judgment