Amita Vs.
Union of India & Anr [2005] Insc 411
(11 August 2005)
Y.K.
Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari & Tarun Chatterjee Tarun Chatterjee, J.
Pursuant
to an advertisement issued at the instance of the Banking Services Recruitment
Board, Chennai ( in short "the "Board") in the Employment
Newspaper dated 9-15th October, 1999 inviting applications for the post of
Probationary Officers in Indian Overseas Banks, the Writ Petitioner, who is a
visually handicapped lady, applied for the said post. The requisite qualifications
for eligibility were:
(a) A
degree from a recognized University or any qualification recognized as
equivalent by Government of India.
(b)
Not below 21 years and above 30 years.
It is
not in dispute that the writ petitioner fulfilled both the requirements. The
writ petitioner had sent her application along with a demand draft. While
filling up the said application form, the writ petitioner mentioned that she
was a blind candidate so that the Board could make adequate arrangement of a
scribe for her during the entrance test as is normally done. Unfortunately, the
application of the writ petitioner for writing the examination, as stated
above, was returned with the following order:
"As
we do not recruit blind candidates for the post of Probationary Officers, your
application is rejected." As against this order and also for other reliefs,
the writ petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. After the Writ Petition was moved by the writ
petitioner, on her prayer, the writ petitioner was allowed to amend the writ
application in which she claimed additional reliefs which are as follows:
(a)
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to hold the entrance examination for the benefit of
the petitioner under the advertisement dated 9-15th October, 1999 issued in Employment Newspaper.
(b)
Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring that the denial of opportunity to contest under general category to
the visually disabled person to the post of Probationary Officer is violative
of fundamental rights enshrined under Art.14,16,19(g) and 21 of the
Constitution.
(c)
Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate order or direction calling upon the
respondents to show the steps taken by them under sections 32, 33,38,42 and 47
of "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities etc.) Act
1995" (hereinafter in short "The Act of 1995).
On
behalf of the writ petitioner, Ms. Neeru Vaid contended that the order passed
by the Board rejecting the application of the writ petitioner on the ground
that since the writ petitioner being a visually impaired lady could not be
recruited in the Bank for the Post of Probationary Officers, was erroneous on
its face as in the advertisement the requirements of the Board were only to the
extent that a candidate should not be less than 21 years and not above 30 years
and he or she should be a Graduate. It was also argued that denial of opportunity
to sit and write the examination in question also violated Articles 14 &
16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the respondent urged that since the post of Probationary Officer
was not earmarked for visually impaired persons the rejection of the
application of the writ petitioner was valid.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials
on record, we are of the view that the order passed by the Board rejecting the
application of the writ petitioner on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained.
As
noted hereinearlier, the requirements asked for by the Board for writing the
examination for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank
were that a candidate shall not be less than 21 years and not above 30 years
and that the candidate must possess a Graduation degree. There is no dispute
that the writ petitioner has satisfied the aforesaid two conditions. That
apart, the writ petitioner although being a visually impaired lady had applied
to write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer of the Bank as a
general candidate and therefore we do not find any reason why such opportunity
to write the examination should be refused by the Board. That apart, we find
that the writ petitioner had also applied to B.S.R.B. Bangalore for the same
post. There she had mentioned the fact of her disability on the application
form and inspite of informing the Board she had received the admit card for the
entrance test which was held on 20th February 2000 and such grant of admit card
would clearly show that the writ petitioner could not be thrown out on the
ground that she was visually impaired lady, who could not be allowed to sit and
write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the bank.
This
question is, however, concluded by a decision of this Court in National
Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. ( 1993 ) 2
SCC 411 which was rendered on a writ application filed for direction for
permission for the visually impaired persons to compete and write Civil
Services Examination and also for being given preferencial treatment in respect
of the identified post. It is also important to mention that the said decision
of this Court in National Ors. also observed as follows:
"The
question of giving preference to the handicapped in the matter of recruitment
to the identified posts is a matter for the Government of India to decide. The
matter is pending for decision with the Government of India for the last
several years. While appreciating the handicapped persons we commend the
Government of India to decide the question of providing preference/reservation
to the handicapped in Group A and B posts as expeditiously as possible.."
Again at Page 416 of the said decision of this Court it observed as follows:
"The
list of category A & B posts identified as suitable for the visually
handicapped by the committee includes number of posts which are filled as a
result of the civil services examination. When there are posts to which blind
and partially blind can be appointed, we see no ground to deprive them of their
rights to compete for those posts along with other candidate belonging to
general category." Finally this Court directed the authorities to permit
the visually impaired persons to compete the Civil Services Examination. While
appreciating the handicapped persons this Court commended the Government of
India to decide the question of providing preference/reservation to the
handicapped in Group A & B posts as expeditiously as possible. This Court
in the aforesaid decision also observed that the list of jobs identified by the
committee as suitable for being held for physically handicapped persons was not
exhaustive and that the Ministries/Departments can further supplement the list
based on their knowledge for jobs requirements, essential qualifications etc.
From
the aforesaid decision of this Court, it would also be clear that the only
restriction which can be spelt out from the ratio of that decision was whether
the post in respect whereof the petitioner sought consideration was whether the
post is liable to be considered as totally unsuitable for visually handicapped
person having regard to the nature of duties attached to the office/post.
(Emphasis
supplied) From the aforesaid observations of this Court, we are confident that
the visually impaired candidate would be entitled to sit and write the
examination for selection for the post of Probationary Officer in a Bank but
only restriction that would be standing in the way of the writ petitioner for
selection is that the nature of duties attached to the office/post would be
unsuitable for the visually impaired candidate. Accordingly, we are of the view
that the order passed by the authorities rejecting the application of the writ
petitioner on the ground shown in the order was erroneous, illegal and invalid
in law and therefore cannot be sustained. In any view of the matter, so far as
prayer for permitting the writ petitioner to sit and write the examination for
the year in question of which rejection order was passed, in our view, the Writ
Petition had rendered infructuous as it is now an admitted position that the
examination for selection in the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank of
the year in question was held, result was subsequently published and the
vacancies were duly filled in by making appointments on the basis of such
selection of candidates. In view of the other reliefs prayed by the writ
petitioner in the amended Writ Petition, the question now needs to be decided
is whether the writ petitioner being a visually impaired lady would be allowed
to sit and write the forthcoming examination for the post of Probationary
Officer and can be appointed in such post, in view of nature of duties attached
to a Probationary Officer. As found herein earlier, it cannot be doubted that a
visually impaired candidate is entitled to sit and write the Probationary
Officer examination along with other general candidates where any post is not
earmarked for handicapped persons, as a general candidate.
Taking
our findings, as made herein earlier to the extent that the writ petitioner was
entitled to sit and write the examination for selection of Probationary Officer
in the Bank, let us now proceed to consider whether the writ petitioner would
be entitled for appointment in the post of Probationary Officer of the Bank in
question, if successful in the written examination in view of the nature of the
job to be performed as Probationary Officer. Before we deal with this aspect of
the matter, we may take into consideration yet another aspect of the matter,
namely, whether denial of permission to the writ petitioner to sit and write
the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank offends
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution
of India guarantees to every citizen of India the right to equality before the law or the equal protection of law.
The first expression "equality before the law" which is taken from
the English common law, is a declaration of equality of all persons within the territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour
of any individual. It also means that amongst the equals the law should be
equal and should be equally administered and that likes should be treated
alike. Thus, what forbids is discrimination between persons who are
substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid
different treatment of unequal. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is both
negative and positive right. Negative in the sense that no one can be
discriminated against anybody and everyone should be treated as equals. The
latter is the core and essence of right to equality and state has obligation to
take necessary steps so that every individual is given equal respect and
concern which he is entitled as a human being. Therefore, Art.14 contemplates
reasonableness in the state action, the absence of which would entail the
violation of Art.14 of the Constitution.
In our
view, and in view of the discussions made herein earlier, in the facts and
circumstance of this case, Art.14 was infringed for denial of permission to the
petitioner to sit and write the examination for selection of Probationary
Officers. As noted herein earlier, writ petitioner was not allowed to sit for
the competitive examination for the post of the Bank Probationary Officer on
the ground that she was visually impaired candidate although the advertisement
in the newspaper did not disclose that a visually impaired candidate cannot be
allowed to sit and write the examination as the nature and duty of the job were
not suitable for the visually impaired candidate. It is not in dispute that the
writ petitioner had qualified for the post of Bank Probationary Officer as per
the advertisement. Statement has been made in the writ petition by the writ
petitioner to the effect that the writ petitioner like other visually impaired
persons can perfectly perform the job of a Probationary Officer. She also
applied for the same post to the B.S.R.B. and received her admit card for the
same. Thus, there is discrimination by the respondent No.2 between the writ
petitioner and persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or
conditions. Here the writ petitioner was not allowed to sit for the entrance
examination and hence was discriminated against the others who qualified for
the same entrance examination. Therefore. the rejection of the application by
the respondents besides the ground already stated hereinearlier, was not on
reasonable grounds and was arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 which is a
fundamental right of every citizen to be treated equally. In this connection,
it is stated by the writ petitioner that a visually impaired lady Ms. Nafisa is
now functioning as a Probationary Officer in one of the Central Bank of India situated at Bombay. Under Art.16 of the Constitution
the general rule laid down is that there should be equal opportunity for
citizens in matters relating to "employment" or "appointment to
any office" under the State.
The
expression "matter relating to employment or appointment" includes
all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent to the
employments which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms
and conditions of such employment. Therefore, under Art.16 of the Constitution
what is guaranteed is the equal opportunity to all persons. This Clause
accordingly does not prevent the state from laying down the requisite
qualifications recruitment for government service, and it is open to the
authority to lay down such other conditions of appointment as would be
conducive to the maintenance of proper discipline among government servants.
Like other employers, government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst
a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment. But this can
only be done only on one condition that all applicants must be given an equal
opportunity along with others who qualify for the same post. The selection test
must not be arbitrary and technical qualifications and standards should be
prescribed where necessary. In this case, in our view, there is violation of
the right of the writ petitioner under Art. 16(1) which provides for general
rule, that there should be equal opportunity for citizens in matters relating
to "employment" or "appointment to any office" under the
State, matters incidental to employment both prior and subsequent to the
employments which form part of the terms and conditions of such employment. In
this case, the writ petitioner was in the first instance denied equal
opportunity as given to other applicants from appearing in the entrance
examination on the ground of disability which was not mentioned as a condition
in the advertisement. That apart, the writ petitioner, although a visually
impaired lady had not asked for any special favour for the post of Probationary
Officer for selection in the post of Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner
without asking for any favour had only applied for writing the examination for
selection not as a reserved handicapped candidate but along with general
candidates who were allowed by the Board to sit and write the examination.
Since the writ petitioner was similarly situated with other general candidates,
and the writ petitioner had not asked for any advantage for being a visually
impaired candidate, we failed to understand why she was not permitted to sit
and write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank..
At the
risk of repetition, it may be reiterated that writ petitioner fulfilled all the
conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post. The primary object
which is guaranteed by Art. 16(1) is equality of opportunity and that was
violated by the Board by debarring the writ petitioner from appearing in the
examination on the mere fact of disability which was not mentioned in the
advertisement and which according to the writ petitioner is not an impediment
for the post. We are therefore of the view that the action of the Board was
arbitrary, baseless and was in violation of the right of the writ petitioner
under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. Further discussion on violation of
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution would not be necessary in view of the
stand taken by the authorities in their written submissions, affidavits and
rejoinder affidavits filed on different dates.
Let us
now consider whether the writ petitioner was entitled to be selected and
appointed as Probationary Officer in the Bank in view of the nature of duties
to be performed by her as Probationary Officer.
Before
we take up this question for decision we keep it on record that this petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution was entertained by this Court on 8th May 2000. This Court granted four weeks time
to the respondents to file a counter affidavit. However, pending hearing of the
writ petition, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that in the
meantime, if all the posts were not filled up, one post shall not be filled up
till further orders from this Court. Subsequently, on 1st August 2000 counter affidavit was filed by the
Board in which it was, inter-alia, stated that the post of Probationary Officer
was not identified for the "Blinds" under the Notification of the
Department of the Personnel and Training dated 25th November 1986. The Board also in their counter affidavit stated that the
reason for rejection of the application of the writ petitioner was due to the
fact that the posts of Probationary Officers were not identified posts for
visually handicapped candidates. In the counter affidavit, the Board had relied
on a Circular issued by the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and
Training O.M. No.F. 36034/4/ESTT.(SCT) dated 25th November 1986 which
identified post of General Banking Officer as suitable only for the following 4
categories:-
1.
BL-----Both legs affected but not arms
2.
OS-----One arm affected (R or L)
3.
OL--- One leg affected (R &/OL)
4. MW-
Muscular weakness and limited physical endurance.
In
view of the above and in view of the assertions made by the Board in their
counter affidavit regarding the capability of a blind person to serve the post
of Probationary Officer in the Banks, it was stated that the application of the
writ petitioner who being a visually impaired candidate was rightly rejected by
the Board.
That
apart, it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the nature of
job of a Probationary Officer demands performance of various types of jobs
under different Departments like Savings Bank and Current Account, other term
deposits, collecting and clearing (inward and outward Bills), Cash counter and
recounting of currency notes and remitting excess cash balance. It was further
asserted by the Board that various duties and responsibilities of an officer in
the above departments were only illustrative and not exhaustive, and that it
was expected of a Probationary Officer to make himself/herself available for
the services of the Bank as per the exigencies of service. Apart from that, the
function of the Bank has now become far more varied and diversified with the
advent of liberalization of economy, so that the duties and functions of a Bank
Officer have become more complicated, complex and difficult requiring greater
alertness, presence of mind and maximum utilization of all his/her physical and
mental facilities. In the counter affidavit, the Board also categorically has
stated that the job of a Probationary Officer is not a specialist officer's job
and a Probationary Officer is also transferred from one station to another
during his/her tenure. The officer in Savings Bank Account/Current Account
Department is required to verify the specimen signature of the customers while
passing cheques for payment. At the same time the Probationary Officer
concerned should also know the customers who come to Bank on and off for
transacting business and that it would not be possible for a blind officer to
get to know about the customers and verify their signatures for day-to-day
banking transactions.
According
to the respondents, and considering all these patent impediments and
constraints the Government of India did not identify the post of Probationary
Officers for "Blinds".
Subsequently
a written submission was filed by the respondent No.1 Union of India in which
it has been clearly stated that the scheme of reservation to physically
handicapped persons has been in vogue in respect of Group C & D employees
in the Central Government Services. This policy has also been extended to
Public Sector Banks. However, there was no such reservation in Group B and A
services of the Central Government. Accordingly, there was no reservation for
physically handicapped persons including visually handicapped in any of the
post under the officers category in Public Sector Banks till the enactment of the
Act 1995 which came into force from January 1996. The then Ministry of Welfare
which is now renamed as Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had
identified various posts in Group C & D in which reservation to physically
handicapped candidates, namely, Orthopaedically handicapped, hearing impaired
and visually handicapped for recruitment should be provided on percentage
basis. In spite of this stand, there was no reservation in Group A & B
services at that stage. As noted herein earlier, it was brought to the notice
of this Court by the respondent No.1 in their written submission that the post
of General Banking Officer could be identified as suitable for the following
four categories under the Orthopaedically handicapped category.
a. BLBoth
legs affected but not arms
b. OAOne
arm affected (R or L)
c. OLOne
leg affected (R or L)
d. MWMuscular
weakness and limited physical endurance.
From
the written submission it would also be evident after the introduction of
reservation to persons with disabilities under the Act 1995, the Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment had advised all the Government Departments to
provide reservation in the posts in Group A and B which were identified as
suitable for a particular category of physically handicapped as per list
provided by them earlier in 1996. A committee was set up by the Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment for fresh identification of various posts in
Group A & B in which reservation should be provided to different categories
of disabled persons. It was the further case of the Union of India in their
written submission that the post of Probationary Officers for which entrance
tests are conducted by different BSRB including the Board are the posts which
are identified as a suitable post only to Orthopaedically handicapped persons
of the description as noted above. Thus, neither visually handicapped nor
hearing impaired was suitable for the post of General Banking Officers.
According
to the Board, the reason behind such identification was that a Banking Officer
working generally in the branches and other public offices are required to
verify the legal documents including cheques, drafts,bankers cheques etc. and
such officers have to have close interactions with the public members, senior
officials of the organization as well as various public institutions etc. For
the aforesaid reason a person of visual deficiency may not prove to be
effective and likely to commit losses to the institutions as well as public
money.
On
30th November 2000, this Court granted six weeks time to the learned Solicitor
General for filing the necessary order and passed the following order:
"
the learned Solicitor General appears and submits that keeping in view humane
aspects of the problem, he would examine and discuss the matter after summoning
concerned officials and file an affidavit by the next date indicating such
posts as in the Banking Division of the Ministry of Finance where visibly
handicapped candidates may be considered for appointment. He also submits that he
would impress upon the concerned ministry to take steps for revision of the
list which was formulated as early as in 1986." (underlining is ours) The
writ petitioner on 23rd
December 2000 filed an
additional affidavit to bring certain additional facts before this Court. The
petitioner pointed out that she was undergoing an advanced diploma course in
computer application and access technology. This course would enable her to use
computer as an effective tool for reading hard copy printed text, to create and
edit documents, to browse the web and send mails in general to use the computer
for any general or customized software independently.
The
petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the National
Association for the Blind also recommended for identification of category A
& B posts for the visually challenged persons in the Nationalised Banks
including State Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India to the standing
committee for identification of jobs for the handicapped, Department of
Personal & Training. The association had brought to the notice of the
committee that "visually handicapped persons in the absence of sight are
suitably trained to develop their auditors, tactile and kinesthetic senses and
are imparted by knowledge by training in computers, Braille and mobility. The
specialized training helps them to develop complete personality with good
communication skills and socially desirable mannerism whereby they can
optimally utilize their mental faculty to take decision in policy matters and
discharge of duties that may be assigned to them." The association also
quoted examples of various visually disabled persons working in the managerial
classes and after careful consideration has recommended list of posts which can
be identified (like Faculty Member/Training Manager, Administrative Officials,
Economic Affair Officers, Raj Bhasha Adhikari/Hindi Officer, Law Officer etc.)
for the visually handicapped persons in the Nationalised Banks.
The
writ petitioner also pointed out that by an order dated 7th August 2000 of the
Chief Commissioner of Disabilities in Case No. 7/1999 Rajni Kant Bansal v.
General Manager, Union Bank of India wherein the Bank modified its recruitment
and promotion policy to bring it in alignment with the Persons with Disabilities
Act, 1995 and resolved that one percent of the posts be reserved for the
visually handicapped from clerical cadre to Officer Cadre. On 5th June 2001,
this Court passed the following Order:
"This
is a typical case showing how the laudable object with which the Parliament
enacted Disability (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 and framed rules 1996 is being frustrated by
non-implementation of that Act by the concerned authorities. The list drawn up
in 1986 was sought to be revised and we are informed by the learned Solicitor
General that an Expert Committee was constituted to revise the 1986 list in
1998. It was re-constituted in July 1999. The reconstituted committee also did
not submit its report and about three months after its constitution it formed
up three sub-committees, which also seem to have done nothing so far.
We are
pained and distressed at this apathy being shown towards the unfortunate
disabled and handicapped. The attitude of indifference causes us concern.
We
direct and hope that within two months the sub-committees would submit their
report and within three months from this date, the Expert Committee would
furnish the revised list to the Government that shall be placed in record in
the Court." On 20th April 2001 this Court granted the prayer of learned
Solicitor General when he submitted that the reconstituted Expert Committee has
already submitted its report on 3/3/2001 and as a result thereof many
categories have been added in the list pertaining to Groups A,B,C and D posts
and this Report has been sent to the concerned Ministry for consideration and
that within six weeks he shall be in a position to place the copy of the report
together with the follow up action taken by them on the affidavit.
On
25th January 2002 this Court passed the following order:
"The
response from the Union of India is not forthcoming. In view of the earlier
adjournments granted, we give a last opportunity of two weeks on a prayer made
by the learned counsel for the Union of India subject to the payment of
Rs.10,000/- (payable Rs.5,000/- to petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee) by way of costs. In the event of a response
forthcoming in two weeks positively, costs shall stand waived." Subsequent
to this another affidavit was filed by the Union of India on 8th February 2002
in which it has been stated that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
of the Government of India in pursuance of provisions of section 32 of the said
Act 1995 had constituted an Expert Committee on 2nd July 1999 under the
Chairmanship of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment to identify/review the posts in Group A,B,C and D to be reserved
for the Persons with disabilities in its Ministries/Departments and Public
Sector Undertakings.
In
this affidavit, the Union of India has further stated that due to the order of
this Court dated 5th January 2001 which directed the Government to do the
needful within three months, the Expert Committee had finalized its report by
holding proper consultation with all concerned like The Indian Banks
Association and submitted its report on 3rd March 2001. In this affidavit the
Union of India for the first time has come forward to say that the post of Probationary
Officer Grade "A" has also been included in the posts identified as
suitable for the blind by its committee.
This
report was circulated to all Central Ministries/Departments to obtain their
comments on the recommendations/posts identified by the Expert Committee. But
before the responses could be received or attended as there was an urgency to
notify the report of the Expert Committee to enable the persons with
disabilities to avail of the benefits of reservation against the newly
identified posts, the Government notified the report by Notification dated 31st
May 2001. The Ministry of Social Justice published the recommendation of the
Expert Committee in the Gazette on 30th June 2001. It was further alleged that
while the committee agreed that the work can be performed by one who can see,
read and write, the job (Probationary Officer "A") has been
identified as suitable for the blind or persons with low vision. But the Indian
Banks Association pointed out all jobs of officers in Public Sector Banks
cannot be performed by the visually handicapped persons and they suggested that
only a few of jobs like officer (Marketing), Officer (Publicity ) can be
performed by the visually handicapped persons.
Another
affidavit on behalf of Union of India was also filed which states that the post
of Probationary Officer Grade "A" has been identified as suitable for
the visually handicapped for the first time by a Notification dated 31st May
2001 and published in the Gazette dated 30th June 2002.
On 2nd
May 2002 this Court passed the following order:
"To
protect the interest of the petitioner it is directed that the time spent
during these proceedings shall be excluded while calculating the upper age
limit prescribed for appointment on any post to which the petitioner may be
found eligible at the endLooking to the importance of the matter we think it
would be proper if the hearing is taken up by a three Judge Bench.we request
the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court and in case it is not
convenient for him to do so then any learned Additional Solicitor General may
be instructed by him to assist the Court" Finally on 22nd December 2004
the written submission was filed on behalf of the Union of India in which it
has been stated that any discrepancies observed in the list identified posts
will be rectified during the review of the list proposed to be done shortly and
proposal is under active consideration. It was further stated that the writ
petitioner being a visually impaired candidate has to either appear in the
examination for selection under the reserved category or she can appear with
the general candidates.
It was
further clarified that if she wants to appear as a general category candidate
then she has to compete with the general category candidates only and she
cannot be given any weightage as the same would amount to discrimination to
others competing with her in the said category. It further clarified the
position that OM No. 36035/4/2003-Establishment dated 8.7.2003 provided that
the vacancies reserved for any category need to be filled by persons belonging
to that category and such vacancies are not open to others. On the other hand,
unreserved vacancies are open to all and reserved category candidates cannot be
denied the right to compete for appointment against such vacancies, provided
they are otherwise eligible. (underlining is ours ) In view of this specific
stand taken by the Union of India in their written submission and affidavits as
detailed hereinearlier,by which the Union of India has categorically stated
that a visually impaired candidate would be entitled to write the examination
and compete the same along with other general candidates as if she was a
general candidate in the said examination and in the event he/she wants to
compete the examination on reserved category in that case also he/she will be
entitled to sit as a reserve candidate in the said examination when some
percentage of the posts are earmarked for visually impaired candidates. It is
needless to say that the Union of India and Bank Authorities have therefore
admitted that the nature of duties of a Probationary Officer can be performed
by a visually impaired candidate and some percentage of impaired candidates are
entitled for being selected and appointed as Probationary Officers of the Bank
either from the general category or from the reserved category.
In
view of the specific orders passed by this Court pending hearing of the writ
petition and considering the fact that this writ petition was pending for more
than a period of four years, age restriction, so far as the writ petitioner is
concerned, shall stand relaxed.
Accordingly,
the writ application is disposed of in the following manner:
(1) If
the writ petitioner chooses to appear as a general candidate to sit and write
any forthcoming examination as a Probationary Officer of the Bank, she will be
entitled to do so.
(2) If
selected, she may be appointed as Probationary Officer subject to her
satisfying the other terms and conditions for appointment in the said post.
(3) If
the writ petitioner writes the examination as a reserved candidate that is to
say on the visually impaired seat, if there be any, and she succeeds in the
said examination, she can be appointed on such reserved category in the event
percentage of Probationary Officer's post is kept reserved for visually
impaired candidate by the respondents.
In the
facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Back