Madras High Court
K.Arvind Ramesh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 April, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.18980 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.03.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.18980 of 2022
W.M.P.Nos.18310 & 18311 of 2022
K.Arvind Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Reserve bank of India,
rep. by its Regional Director,
Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
3. The Assistant General Manager,
Human Resource Management Department,
Reserve Bank of India, Chennai. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
to the order No.CHN.HRMD.RECRUIT.No.S.628/07.01.044/2022-23
dated 30.05.2022 issued by the third respondent Assistant General
Manager of the respondent bank and quash the same as being illegal
arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent
bank to appoint the petitioner to the post of Office Attendant under the
Persons with Disability quota (PwBD) with all attendant service benefits.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18980 of 2022
For petitioner : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar
For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.C.Mohan for
M/s.King & partridge
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the 3rd respondent dated 30.05.2022 thereby rejected the request made
by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Office Attendant in
the persons with Benchmark disability quota.
2. The petitioner is a person with physical disability and he is a
autistic person from his childhood. He is certified that he has Mild
Autism Spectrum Disorder as well as Mild Intellectual Disability. The IQ
level of the petitioner has been assessed as 60%. While being so, the first
respondent had issued notification for 841 vacancies to the post of Office
Attendant (OA) all over India. As per the recruitment notification, it has
reservation for persons with Benchmark Physical Disability who suffer
from Autism and Intellectual disability. This reservation is made in
pursuant to the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (hereinafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
called as ''RPWD Act''). As per the notification, the petitioner had
applied to the post of Office Attendant under the PwBD quota and
submitted his all relevant medical records including the disability
certificate. The petitioner had attended written examination and he
secured 103 marks out of 120 and he also passed language proficiency
test. His certificates were verified by the respondent on 15.09.2021.
However, the petitioner was not selected for the post of Office Attendant
under the PwBD quota. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation
to the respondents. The petitioner was informed that only 52 candidates
were eligible for the post of Office Attendant in Chennai office and no
candidates were selected under PwBD category for the post of Office
Attendant. Thereafter, in order to prove his case, the petitioner submitted
certificate dated 25.03.2022 issued by the Institute of Mental Health,
Chennai along with detailed representation However, the 3rd respondent
rejected the request made by the petitioner by an order dated 30.05.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has suffered with Intellectual Disability from his childhood and
he has assessed with his disability with 55% and his IQ was assessed
with 60%.The petitioner produced disability certificate dated 01.10.2010.
Therefore, the non-selection of the petitioner is clear violation of the
provision of RPWD Act and the International Conventions to which India
is a signatory and as per Articles 246 and 253 of the Constitution,
particularly Entries 12 to 14 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of
Constitution of India. Sofar the respondents did not fill up the vacancy
under PwBD quota. He further submitted that the petitioner was
subjected to clinical examination and psychological assessment in the
Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai on 04.07.2023 and observed
that the petitioner has Intellectual Disability and Autism to an extent of
70% disability. As per the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel and
Training stated that disability of Autism is also coming under the
intellectual disability. As per certificate produced by the petitioner, he
was assessed with intellectual disability to the extent of 55%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
However, the assessment certificate issued by the Institute of Mental
Health, Chennai was not considered by the respondents for the
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Office Attendant under the
PwBD category.
4. The respondents filed counter and submitted that as per the
notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Office Attendant under
the disability quota. The petitioner had attended written examination
and secured 103 marks out of 120 marks. The petitioner was found
ineligible for the post of Office Attendant on the ground that the disability
stated in the disability certificate submitted by the petitioner does not fall
under Category 4 disability for which the post was notified by the
respondents. The disability certificate produced by the petitioner
assessed his disability as Dyslexia and it is not Autism as notified by the
first respondent in the recruitment notification. Further, the petitioner
also failed to produce the valid disability certificate during certificate
verification. During the certificate verification, the petitioner produced
disability certificate dated 01.10.2010 and the Identity Card issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government of Tamilnadu. It was mentioned that he was suffering from
Dyslexia and intellectual disability. However, there was no mentioning
that petitioner is suffering from Autism. He vehemently contended that
the post of Office Attendants Panel year 2020 was not notified for the
disability mentioned in the certificate dated 01.10.2010 and the entire
selection process has been completed and declared the final results on
18.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner produced disability certificate
dated 25.03.2022 certifying that the petitioner suffered from Intellectual
Disability Mild 50% and Autism Spectrum Disorder-Mild-50%.
Therefore, the petitioner failed to produce any documents during
certificate verification conducted by the respondents on 15.09.2021.
5. He further submitted that the essential qualification for the
appointment to a post is for the employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the
employer and the nature of work. He also cited judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kishore Pandit vs The State
of Bihar and others wherein it is held that it is not open for an employer
to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream,
during the course of the ongoing selection process. Any such action
would be hit by the vice of arbitrariness as it would tantamount to denial
of an opportunity to those candidates who are eligible in terms of the
advertisement but would stand disqualified on the basis of a change in the
eligibility criteria after the same is announced by the employer. Further
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is not the function of the
Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and
to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is
fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted
Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court
has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be
interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent
material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure
vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.
7. On perusal of the records revealed that the petitioner is suffering
from Dyslexia and intellectual disability. The petitioner had categorically
declared in his online application that his disability as Autism and
Intellectual disability. Only on the ground that the petitioner is not
suffered with Autism and rejected the candidature of the petitioner under
PwBD category to the post of Office Attendant. On perusal of the
certificates produced by the petitioner, on certificate verification on
15.09.2021, the disability certificate dated 01.10.2010 and Identity Card
for persons with disability issued by the Government of Tamilnadu dated
02.12.2019 were produced, wherein it was categorically mentioned that
the petitioner is suffering from Dyslexia at the level of 65% and
Intellectual Disability at up to the level of 75%. On perusal of the Office
Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions Department of Personnel & Training dated 20.06.2017
''revealed that the intellectual disability is a condition characterized by
significant limitation both in intellectual functioning (reasoning, learning,
problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour which covers a range of every
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
day social and practical skills, including autism spectrum disability
means a neuro-developmental condition typically appearing in the first
three years of life that significantly affects a person's ability to
communicate, understand relationships and relate to others, and is
frequently associated with unusual or stereotypical rituals or behaviours''.
Though, the petitioner produced the latest disability certificate dated
25.03.2022 along with his representation, it revealed that the petitioner is
suffering with intellectual disability Mild-50% and Autism Spectrum
Disorder Mild-50%. Therefore, the petitioner also produced medical
certificate issued by the Institute of Mental Heath, Kilpauk, Chennai
dated 04.07.2023 revealed that the petitioner has mild Intellectual
Disability with Autistic features. 10% of individuals with intellectual
disability also will be having diagnosis of Autism. His intellectual
disability and Autism co-exist as 70% disability. As per the eligibility
criteria under PwBD quota, the candidate should possess a latest
disability certificate issued by the Government authority certified as not
less than 40% of the specific disability. Further, though the respondents
declared the final results on 18.02.2022, under PwBD quota, the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Office Attendant has not been filled up so far.
8. The learned counsel for the Respodents submitted that if till the
petitioner is suffering from Autism by the disability certificate, he can
participate in the future recruitment under PwBD category. Now, the
entire selection process has been completed and the unfilled post of Office
Attendant under PwBD quota can be carry forwarded in the next
recruitment process. The fact remains that it cannot be ascertained that
the next recruitment process will be commenced soon by the respondents.
Admittedly, the post of Office Attendant under PwBD quota has not been
filled up so far. That apart, except the petitioner, no other persons is
available in the 4th category in Chennai. The 4th Category is such as
Autism, Multiple Disabilities. The 4th category (D) prescribes Intellectual
Disability. Therefore, this Court finds patent material irregularities in the
procedure adopted during the selection process such as the respondents
failed to note down the disability suffered by the petitioner from 65% and
disability 75% and the intellectual disability includes disability of Autism.
Therefore, the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondents are not helpful to the case on hand.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the 3rd
respondent dated 30.05.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent
dated 30.05.2022 is quashed. The respondents are directed to select the
petitioner to the post of Office Attendant under the PwBD quota and
appoint him in the post of Office Attendant as per the recruitment
notification dated 24.02.2021 within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
02.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gvn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gvn
To
1. Reserve bank of India,
rep. by its Regional Director,
Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
3. The Assistant General Manager,
Human Resource Management Department,
Reserve Bank of India, Chennai.
02.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
