Summary
The Supreme Court held that a candidate who applied for Management Trainee at Coal India in the visually handicapped category, and was declared unfit because she also had partial hemiparesis, was wrongly denied employment; an AIIMS board assessed her disability at 57%, above the 40% benchmark. Relying on reasonable accommodation, Articles 14, 21 and 41 and Article 142, the Court directed creation of a supernumerary post for her.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench was justified in setting aside the Single Judge's relief merely because the selection panel had expired before the writ petition and interim order.
- Whether the appellant, declared unfit at the initial medical examination owing to multiple disabilities, was entitled to appointment as a person with benchmark disability.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(y), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The definition of 'reasonable accommodation', as construed in Omkar Ramchandra Gond and later decisions, was relied on to stress a broad, individualised reading of the employer's obligations toward persons with disabilities. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 2(ze), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Referred to in directing that the appellant be given a suitable desk job with a separate computer and keyboard as per universal design. (¶ 31)
- Articles 14, 21, 37, 39(a) and 41, Constitution of IndiaThe Court treated reasonable accommodation as emanating from Article 41 read with Articles 14 and 21, and held that the directive principles in Articles 39(a) and 41 inform the content of fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood. (¶¶ 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 33)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe direction to create a supernumerary post was made additionally under the power to do complete justice, on the peculiar facts. (¶¶ 23, 34)
Held
- The Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the Single Judge's judgment merely because the panel had expired; the appellant had been wrongly denied employment under the 2019 notification, and the Single Judge had permissibly moulded relief, with one post kept vacant by interim order. (¶ 8)
- On the AIIMS report finding 57% disability, above the 40% benchmark, the appellant was eligible under the reserved quota and qualified for appointment as Management Trainee. (¶¶ 7, 9, 12)
- Reasonable accommodation, enshrined in the RPwD Act and rooted in Articles 14, 21 and 41, must be understood broadly and flexibly according to individual needs; it is a facet of substantive equality, and its denial amounts to discrimination. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Disability intersects with gender, and technicalities such as expiry of the panel or the timing of an interim order reserving a vacancy cannot defeat complete justice where the denial of employment was no fault of the candidate; this was said on the special facts of the case. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The appellant was denied employment only because the notification did not provide for 'multiple disability' and she had applied as a visually handicapped candidate, though her disability exceeded the benchmark. (¶ 29)
- Disability rights are also to be viewed through corporate social responsibility and the social dimension of ESG; true workplace equality requires due weight to disability inclusion. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Division Bench order set aside; a supernumerary post to be created for the appellant, with a suitable desk job and separate computer and keyboard, and the Chairman of Coal India requested to post her at North Eastern Coalfields, Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam; order made on peculiar facts and under Article 142; appeal disposed of.