One cannot be rejected only on the grounds of his/her disability

One cannot be rejected only on the grounds of his/her disability written by Rashmi Maruvada student of Damodaram Sanjeevaya National Law University Vishakapatnam

Amita vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 August 2005

Introduction

This case is a writ petition filed by a visually challenged girl in the Supreme Court of India on the grounds of her being rejected on the basis of her disability for the post of probationary officer in the Banking services recruitment board, Chennai.

Facts

An advertisement was released by the Banking services recruitment board Chennai for the appointment of a probationary officer. Seeing the advertisement, Amita, a visually challenged girl applied for the post. The criteria for the post were as follows.

1. The candidate must be a graduate from any recognized university.
2. The candidate should not be less than 21 years of age and not more than 30 years of age.
   These criteria also included any other qualifications mentioned by the government of India.
   The petitioner sent her application along with a demand draft. She mentioned in her application that she is visually impaired so that the board can make the necessary arrangements regarding providing of scribe for the examination. After a few days her application was returned to her and it was mentioned there that ‘As we don’t hire visually challenged candidates for the post of probationary officer, your application is rejected.’ Aggrieved by the decision of the board, Amita filed a writ petition in the supreme court of India under Article 32 of the constitution of India.
   The petitioner was also allowed to amend her petition in which she prayed for the following reliefs.
3. An order of mandamus should be passed in order to allow her to sit for the entrance examination.
4. The board in the instant case has not given her an equal opportunity which is a violation of articles 14, 16, 19, and 21.
5. An order of mandamus should be passed whereby a proper action should be taken keeping in view the rights of persons with a disability, equal opportunities Act 1995.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the denial of opportunity by the Board only on the ground of her disability is erroneous on the face as the advertisement only mentioned that the candidates applying for the post should be more than 21 and less than 30 years of age and should be a graduate. The petitioner had fulfilled these criteria. The order of the Board has violated article 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the constitution.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent argued that the post of a probationary officer is not earmarked for the visually challenged so the rejection of application of the writ petitioner is valid.

Judgment

It was held that the order of the Board cannot be sustained as the writ petitioner has fulfilled all the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, hence she cannot be rejected only on the grounds of her visual impairment. It was also found that the petitioner also applied for the same post in Bangalore and she was given the admit card for the entrance test even after mentioning that she is visually impaired. This clearly proves that visual impairment cannot be a reason for the rejection of the application.