Ranvir Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 4023 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

								                    AFR
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7098 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Ranvir Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Shekhar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.

Heard Sri V.K. Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

This writ petition impugns an order dated 26 August 2016 in terms of which the absorption of the petitioner under the U.P. Collection Amin's Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2015 has been turned down on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the Physically Handicapped category as mentioned and encompassed in the Government Order dated 13 January 2011. The order holds that the petitioner does not fall under the category of "OA" or "PD". These abbreviations are further explained in the order itself with "OA" to mean "one arm effected" and "PD" to be "partial deaf".

Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that quite apart from the Government Order seeking to restrict the Physically Disabled to these two categories alone being contrary to the mandate of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the view taken by the respondents is liable to be set aside even on admitted facts.

Elaborating upon his submissions, Sri Singh has referred to the disability certificate which the petitioner holds which certifies that he suffers from a "loco motor disability" to the extent of 45%. Insofar as the Government Order dated 13 January 2011 is concerned, it spells out the physical handicaps and explains the term "OA" as follows:

"(iv) One leg affected (Rand/or L)

एक पैर प्रभावित (दायां या बायां)

(v) one arm affected (R&L)

एक हाथ प्रभावित (दायां या बायां)

(a) Impaired reach

पैरों पर ख़ड़े होने में असमर्थ

(b) Weakness of grip

पकड़ने में असमर्थ

(c) ataxic

स्नायु दुर्बलता"

According to Sri Singh, the acronym "OA" clearly takes within its ambit all persons who suffer from an "impaired reach" which has been further explained to include all persons who are unable to stand. Bearing in mind the certificate which the petitioner holds and the admitted fact that he suffers from a loco motor disability, it is his submission that his claim has been wrongly rejected.

Learned Standing Counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed in these proceedings submits that under the 2015 Rules and the Government Order noted above, submits that it is only persons suffering from "OA" and "PD" who are entitled for absorption on the post of Collection Amins. He submits that since the petitioner does not fall within the category of a person whose one arm is affected, his claim has been rightly turned down. Additionally learned Standing Counsel also refers to the explanation of the acronym "OL" as appearing in the Government Order dated 13 January 2011 to submit that "one leg affected" persons are separately classified and do not fall within the category "OA". It is these rival submissions which fall for determination.

It becomes pertinent to point out here that although it was orally submitted that only "OA" and "PD" category of persons are covered under the 2015 Rules, the plea taken in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit reads thus:

"5. That the State Government has issued Government Order No. 35/65-03-11-78/99 Dated 13.1.2011 for the Reservation under physically handicapped quota for the public servant and for that has categorically defined the category of each of the quota. It is further submitted that for filing the post of Seasonal Collection Amins, in the aforesaid government Order at Serial No. 89 the handicapped has been defined as OA (One Arm Affected) and P.D. (Partial Deaf), whereas the petitioner Shri Ranvir Singh, who has obtained the physically handicapped certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, according to which he comes under the category of OL (One Leg Affected), therefore, he is not eligible to get the benefit of OL Category of Handicapped. It is further submitted that first appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1.7.1988 and is presently working under Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue) Meerut as a Seasonal Collection Amin. Copy of the Government Order dated 13.1.2011 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to this counter affidavit."

It is evident from the above averments taken in paragraph 5 that the respondents do not rely upon any independent classification under the 2015 Rules but rest their case solely upon the Government Order dated 13 January 2011. Additionally it must in all fairness be noted that learned counsel is unable to draw the attention of the Court to any particular provision of the 2015 Rules under which only "OA" and "PD" are contemplated as being entitled to the benefits of reservation. Whether the State respondents did undertake an exercise of evaluation pursuant to which it was found that only "OA" and "PD" candidates were suitable to discharge the duties and functions attached to the post of Collection Amin is neither disclosed nor has any material been alluded to in this respect.

Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the submissions advanced, it would be pertinent to recognise and underline the basic ethos of the 1995 Act. The 1995 Act is essentially a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to integrate the physically handicapped in the mainstream. It is aimed at enabling the differently abled to stand as equal citizens thus fulfilling the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It seeks to reinforce the obligation of all to respect the inherent dignity of an individual, to enable a person who is physically challenged to take an equal stride in society. A provision of reservation in favour of the physically handicapped must, therefore, be conferred a liberal interpretation so that it expands the protection envisaged under the 1995 Act in their favour.

Reverting to the facts of our case it is not disputed that the petitioner suffers from a "loco motor disability". Both "OA" as well as "OL" would, therefore, evidently fall under this basic genre. Secondly the Court notes that the expression "OA" is further defined to include within its ambit persons with an "impaired reach" which is further explained to include persons who are unable to stand. The definition is clearly expansive and since the legs of the petitioner are evidently affected, the Court finds no justification for not recognising him as suffering from an "impaired reach".

The reach of a human being, it would be relevant to note, is not restricted to or dependent upon the upper limbs alone. It would necessarily include the lower limbs also. Both are, indubitably, complementary to each other. A physical deformity afflicting either of the limbs would undisputedly hinder and impede the reach of a person. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court the petitioner's case would clearly fall within the category "OA". The Court finds no valid justification to restrict the application of the expression "impaired reach" to persons whose upper limbs alone may be affected.

It is further relevant to note that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner's case would not fall within the scope of "OA" rests solely on their understanding of "OA" being restricted to a person with one hand. The further amplification of "OA" under the Government Order itself to include persons with "impaired reach" has not been noticed at all.

Learned standing counsel referring to the Government Order in question has further contended that reservation in favour of Physically Handicapped was restricted to "OA" alone and since the petitioner's affliction falls within "OL" his claim was rightly rejected. While this issue does not really survive once the Court has found that the petitioner's disability would stand covered under the category "OA" itself, this argument is clearly untenable when one views the provisions of Section 33 of the 1995 Act. The said provision reads thus: -

"S. 33. Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-

(i) Blindness or low vision;

(ii) Hearing impairment;

(iii) Loco motor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

As is evident from a plain reading of the provision, it makes no distinction between a disability between the upper and lower limbs of a human being. Loco motor disability is encompassed in clause (iii) as a class as a whole and is clearly a genre. Even under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996, physical disabilities were classified under the following broad heads alone: -

a) Orthopedically handicapped

b) Visually handicapped and

c) Hearing handicapped

The sub-classification which is made by the State respondents between "OA" and "OL" is not shown to have any statutory backing. Be it a physical handicap or affliction of the hand or the leg, both would clearly fall within the category of "orthopedically handicapped". There is also no independent material on record of any particular exercise undertaken by the State respondents to classify posts in the establishment as being suitable for "OA" and not "OL". However even if the validity of this sub classification were assumed to be valid, the petitioner cannot be denied relief in light of what has been held above. In view of all of the above, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the objection taken by the State respondents.

Consequently this petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 26 August 2016 is hereby quashed. The respondents shall now proceed to evaluate the claim of the petitioner afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The exercise of evaluation of the petitioner's claim shall be attended to and disposed of with expedition and in any case within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 29.11.2018

LA/-