Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka By vs Ms. Latha H N on 11 November, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
WP No. 19994 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 19994 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BY REPTD. ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE CELL,
OPPOSITE TO CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF D.P.A.R., (SERVICE RULES)
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by SHARADA
VANI B 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT & DIFFERENTLY
HIGH COURT ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS,
OF
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
(ADMINISTRATION) BENGALURU NORTH,
K.G.ROAD, NEAR MYSURU BANK CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
WP No. 19994 of 2024
AND:
MS. LATHA H N
D/O NAGARAJU, W/O VENKATESH T.S.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT HANDITAVALLI VILLAGE, KELLUR POST,
RAVANDURU HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 108.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN A.No-3400/2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT
DATED 21.12.2023 AND B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 IN A.No-3400/2023
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU AND C)
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE A.No-3400/2024 ON THE FILE
OF THE KSAT BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
The State and its Officers are knocking at the doors
of Writ Court for assailing the State Administration
Tribunal's order dated 21.12.2023 whereby Application
No. 3400/2023 filed by the Respondent (a member of
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
Scheduled caste and absolutely blind) having been
favoured, relief has been accorded to her as under:
"17. In view of the discussions above, the
Application succeeds and accordingly, we direct
as follows.
1. The endorsement dated 4-07-2023
as at Annexure A5 rejecting the
candidature of the Applicant is
quashed.
2. The selection of the Applicant in the
final select list of 8-03-2023 as at
Annexure A4 is correct, proper and
lawful.
3. The appointment authority in the
first respondent department shall
consider the applicant for
appointment with regard to the
selection in the select list of 8-03-
2023. if she is otherwise eligible for
appointment. Time for compliance is
three months from the date of this
order .
4. The fifth respondent institution shall
pay costs of this Application to the
applicant of Rs.10,000/- (rupees Ten
Thousand) only within one month
from the date of this order."
2. The short question very effectively argued by
the learned HCGP relates to a favourable reservation for
the class of disabled candidates (low vision). She submits
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
that reservation for 'low vision candidates' constitutes one
class and reservation for the 'blind candidates' constitutes
another. This subtle difference between the two having
been lost sight off, the Tribunal's order has an error
apparent on its face warranting interference of this Court.
In support of her submission, she draws our attention to
the Recruitment Notification dated 21.03.2022 and the
Principal Notification dated 26.07.2011. She banks upon
Apex Court decision in UNION OF INDIA v. NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF THE BLIND1.
3. Having heard the learned HCGP for the
Petitioners and having perused the Petition papers, we
decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
3.1 It is not the case of Petitioners that a blind
person cannot perform duties of the post to which
Respondent had staked claim. In fact, the Government
Notification dated 26.07.2011 classifies persons of various
disabilities and positions wherein they can be
(2013) 10 SCC 772
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
accommodated in the public employment. The very first
category belongs to candidates with blindness and the
second is earmarked for the candidates with low vision.
Blinds are permitted to stake their claim for the kind of
work which the candidates with low vision can do.
Admittedly in the subject Recruitment Notification of 2022,
no reservation is accorded for the candidates with
blindness. It speaks only of Low Vision candidates.
Therefore, the Tribunal is more than justified in banking
upon the Central piece of delegated legislation namely, the
statutory Notification dated 05.03.2007 which should
override the comparatively lesser status delegated
legislation namely 2011 Notification of the State.
3.2 The submission of learned HCGP that the kind
of work which a 'Graduate Primary Teacher' (Social
Studies, teaching Kannada) does in ordinary course cannot
be discharged by persons with absolute blindness, though
their educational qualifications do satisfy the Rule
requirement, is bit difficult to agree with. As already
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
mentioned above, the 2011 Notification in so many words
states "Secondary School Assistant Grade - II, Assistant
Master (Arts and Languages)" can be blind candidates.
How blindness would come in the way of discharging
duties of a teacher of the kind is difficult to appreciate.
History is replete with instances of blind people who have
achieved great things in life: Homer (900 B.C.) of great
epics (Iliad and Odyssey), John Milton (1608-1674) [
Paradise Lost], Louis Braille (1809-1852) [Braille Script],
Helen Keller (1880-1968) [women suffrage] & Srikanth
Bolla (CEO of Bollant Industries worth £48 million] are
only a few to name.
3.3 Apex Court has held that even a nearly blind
person [50% visual imparity] can be appointed as a
judge/magistrate vide V. SURENDRA MOHAN v. STATE
OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS2. There are several UN
Conventions which provide for special and preferential
treatment inter alia for the blind and visually impaired:
(2019) 4 SCC 237
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
(1) Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CPRD, 2006).
(2) Resolution on Accessibility
(A/RES/65/186, 2010).
(3) Resolution on Inclusive Education
(A/RES/69/151, 2014).
It hardly needs to be stated that the policy content of
these Resolutions need to be read into our statutory
instruments like the 2016 Act and the Rules promulgated
thereunder, there being nothing repugnant vide SAFAI
KARAMCHARI ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA3. It does
not need to be mentioned that the persons with blindness
in particular have several positive qualities: exceptional
ability to adapt; resilience i.e., strong coping mechanism
to overcome daily challenges, resourcefulness i.e., skill at
finding creative solutions to obstacles; strong listening
skills, excellent memory and recall abilities, unwavering
commitment to achieving goals, heightened senses of
hearing, touch & smell, etc.
(2014) 11 SCC 224
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
3.4 There is yet another aspect: The 2022
Recruitment Notification does not provide for reservation
for the blind candidates. Had such reservation been
provided, arguably we could have countenanced the
contention of learned HCGP that post in question having
been earmarked for candidates of 'low vision' only, blind
candidate could not have staked his claim for the same.
For the purpose of preferential treatment, as between the
candidates of 'low vision' and the candidates of 'absolute
blindness', the priority avails to the later since they are
more disadvantageously placed qua the former subject to
the condition that the blindness does not come in the way
of discharging duties attached to the post. Learned
HCGP's reliance on National Federation of the Blind
supra does not come to the aid of petitioners since that
question had not arisen in the said case. Thus, the
impugned order of the Tribunal has brought about social
justice to the class of persons whom the Nature has placed
at a disadvantageous position; to that predicament, Article
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
12 Entity should not add by taking an unconscionable
stand in adjudication of the cause.
3.5 All the above having animated the impugned
order of the Tribunal although a bit inarticulately, it does
not call for interference on the basis of 'hair splitting
arguments'. The authority that be ought to have
earmarked some posts for the blind, or in the alternative
should have permitted the blind candidates too to be in
the fray along with persons of 'low vision' for the post in
question. An argument to the contrary would offend the
laudable policy of the State as enacted in the erstwhile
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the present
statute namely, the People with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The actions of the State and its instrumentalities falling
within the umbrella of Article 12 have to be consistent with
such policies statutorily promulgated. There is nothing in
National Federation of the Blind supra that runs
counter to this view. Apparently, this decision is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
considered by the Apex Court in V.SURENDRA MOHAN
supra wherein appointment of a low vision (50%)
candidate as judicial officer is upheld. It hardly needs to
be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition
that it lays down in a given fact matrix and not for all that,
that logically follows from what has been so laid down vide
Lord Halsbury in QUINN v. LEATHEM4.
3.6 The last contention of learned HCGP that in the
absence of a challenge to the 2022 Recruitment
Notification, the Tribunal could not have ignored the
prescription of reservation only for the candidates
belonging to low vision category, is bit difficult to
countenance. In every case of recruitment, a challenge to
prescription of the kind need not be formally mounted.
The Tribunal has not excluded the candidates of low vision
from the fray; it has only widened the fray by permitting
blind candidates in it. Courts & Tribunals have to mould
the relief to suit to the requirement of law, reason &
1901 AC 495
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45381-DB
justice, and the impugned order has achieved that
objective. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in DAVIS vs.
MILLS 5 has observed as under:
"Constitutions are intended to preserve
practical and substantial rights, not to maintain
theories..."
In the above circumstances, this Petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected in
limine.
Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the
sole Respondent by Speed Post, immediately.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the
able research & assistance rendered by its Law Clerk cum
Research Assistant, Mr.Raghunandan K S.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
194 US 451 (1904)
