The Punjab & Haryana High Court while directing RBI to issue an appointment letter to a PwD candidate who could not give her thumb impression on biometrics because of her physical disability observed that the approach of the RBI is pedantic and mechanical and the law does not require anything to be done which is humanly impossible and the machines are meant to aid and assist the human beings and not to supplant their mind.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner cracked an exam for the post of Office Attendant advertised by the RBI, however, her biometric data could not be obtained due to her physical condition due to which she was not issued an appointment letter. She filed the present petition under Article 226/227 seeking direction to respondents to issue an appointment letter for the post of Office Attendant under the PwD (OH) category.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is suffering from 50% right arm hemiparesis and because of said disability, the petitioner cannot give her thumb impression through a Biometric machine, however, she had given her thumb impression on a piece of paper. The respondent despite getting a thumb impression on a piece of paper has denied the opportunity petitioner to serve with the respondent-Bank
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that it is factually correct that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the exam on the basis of physical verification of data, however, she was bound to give her thumb impression through a Biometric machine and the respondent as per advertisement is bound to capture Biometric data which is possible through thumb impression on the available machine. The petitioner was given four opportunities, still, she is still unable to give her thumb impression on the machine.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner has cleared the exam and verified her identity physically and there is no doubt about the identity of the petitioner and the sole ground for denying the benefit of appointment is that the respondent is unable to capture Biometric data.
The court observed that if the things are verified by physical form, it seems to be highly pedantic and unreasonable on the part of the respondent to deny benefit on the sole ground that they are unable to capture thumb impression through electronic mode and further it is not a case of the respondent that the petitioner was not coming forward or she was not ready to give her thumb impression and if through electronic mode, the respondents are unable to capture a thumb impression of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied the substantial benefit.
Further, the court stated that the law does not require anything to be done that is humanly impossible and the machines are meant to aid and assist human beings and not to supplant their mind and active involvement further the act of the respondent is contrary to the intent and purport of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
Case Title: Sakshi Babbar vs Reserve Bank of India and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Case No.: CWP-11752-2019 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rakshit Gupta and Mr. Brij Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Suri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
