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.

The post One cannot be rejected only on the grounds of his/her disability appeared first on LexForti .

Ajoy Debbarma v. State of Tripura (SC)

Facts: 

In the state of Tripura advertisements for recruitment to the posts of teachers were issued in the years- 2002, 2006 and 2009, the qualifications criteria for these posts were kept low to attract more applicants which led to the State of Tripura appointing 10,323 teachers between 2010-2014, many writ petitions were filed before the Guwahati High Court challenging the appointments on various grounds. The High Court in what is known as the Tanmoy Nath case, held that the appointments were contrary to the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993 and some other relevant provisions, they were held to arbitrary, illegal and the selections were found to be illogical and backed by favouritism and nepotism. The High Court criticized the manner in which the interview board made selections and stated that in interview-based selections there should be more transparency, guidelines are to be issued on how the candidates are to be marked, proper record should be maintained, etc which was not followed in the present case. The High Court to ensure that children’s education is not severely impacted directed the teachers whose selection was set aside to continue working in their present posts till 31-12-2014 (end of academic session), the state was directed to complete fresh selection of teachers in all categories by 31-12-2014 which was to be done in accordance with the New Education Policy (NEP) the state was to frame within two months. Appeal against the Tanmoy Nath case decision were filed before the Supreme Court who rejected the same in its order dated 29-03-2017 however issued certain modifications in the directions issued in para 123 of the High Court judgement such as the directing the state to frame the NEP by 30^th April 2017, advertisements for filling up vacancies to be issued by 31^st May 2017, fresh selections to be completed by 31^stDecember 2017 among other things. The State Govt. in 2017, created 12,000 non-teaching posts in Group-C category which led to the filing of a contempt petition before the apex court who in its order dated 4-10-2017 stated that it found prima-facie merit in the allegations and restrained the sate of Tripura from filling up the 12,000 new posts and adjourned the matter, when it was heard again the State Govt. assured the court that its object was to continue in service all those whose appointments were terminated and that only after completing the fresh selection of teachers they would go ahead with the selections for the non-teaching staff posts, the court ordered the State govt. to file an affidavit comprising of the court’s direction after which the contempt proceeding was dismissed. The services of the ad-hoc teachers were finally terminated at the end of 2019-2020 academic session; some of the teachers appointed in 2010-2014 approached the High Court who was to consider if their writ petitions to reopen the issues decided by it in the Tanmoy Nath case can be allowed. The apex court in its order dated 29-03-2017 had observed that the termination of teachers was illegal as it violated the principles of natural justice as they were not made parties nor issued notice to the proceedings protecting their services and questioned if the memorandum extending their services on ad-hoc basis and rejecting them representation should be quashed or not, however the High Court observed that information regarding the same was widely circulated through print (newspapers) as well as electronic media throughout the stated. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that it required review of its own judgment in the Tanmoy Nath case which would be illegal, an abuse of power and gives rise to doctrine of merger, this decision of the High Court dated 3-10-2019 is challenged before the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition.

Issues:

1. Whether the termination of teachers was illegal, and if they will receive additional advantages for selection in the fresh selection process.
2. Whether the alternative employment offered by the State of Tripura is degrading for the teachers.

Legal Provisions:

• Constitution of India articles 14 and 16.

Petitioner’s Contention:

The petitioner’s contended that some of the teachers terminated after the academic session of 2019-2020 are eligible and qualified to be appointed as teachers and they may miss out on this opportunity as they may not fall within the prescribed age-bracket, they prayed for relaxation of age-bar for such teachers. On an application to file additional documents was permitted according to which there were 20,165 vacant posts of teachers in the state out which only 4300 were appointed in various categories, in light of these vacancies the petitioner’s stated that the terminated teachers be re-employed. They contended that the alternative employment for terminated teachers will not consider their past service, they will have to start from the ground up in the new job and the employments offered in Group-C/ Group-D categories will be degrading for the teachers. Some teachers wished to be employed in the vacant posts of teachers, some stated employment in Group-C/Group-D category will be a degradation while some others were willing to accept such employment.

Respondent’s contention:

The respondent contented that the teachers terminated at the end of the academic session had participated in the fresh selection process with the State Government affording them age-relaxation and was also planning to provide alternative employment to others. They stated that the State Govt. was taking necessary steps as per the court’s direction, on which the apex court asked them to submit an affidavit, which mentioned that in compliance of the court orders the state govt. had issued advertisements on 27-05-2017 for filling up vacancies, age-relaxation provided to teachers who participated in 2010-2014 recruitment process, it also sated the 10,618 vacant posts created in different departments under Group-C/Group-D categories for which the State Govt. seeks permission along with permission for providing age-relaxation for appointments in theses posts. The respondents further contended that since the High Court in Tanmoy Nath case had held the selection and appointments as illegal and arbitrary, the past service of such teachers cannot be recognised and that the State Govt. took adequate measures to provide them alternative employment with age-relaxation. They also stated that the figure of 20,165 vacant posts is incorrect as it also takes into account the 12,000 posts in Group-C/Group-D category the State Govt. attempted to create in the year 2017.

Observations of the Court:

The court accepted the findings of the court in the Tanmoy Nath case and dismissed the appeals arising therefrom. It stated that the service of the ad-hoc teachers which was extended numerous times now stands terminated. The State of Tripura is directed to conduct the selection process as per the directions in the Tanmoy Nath case whereby the concerned candidates can participate in with age-relaxation which is afforded to the state in all selections till 31-03-2023. The court observed that since the selection and appointments were found to be illegal and illogical, the candidates cannot be given any other advantage and the alternative employment being offered by the State Govt. is by no means degrading but is sought to provide relief to those who do not succeed in selection to the teacher posts, the court does not view it as a degradation.

Judgement:

The appeal was dismissed without any order to costs.

The post Alternative Employment provided by State Government not Degradation appeared first on LexForti .