Supreme Court Upholds Disability Criteria for Civil Judge Post: V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (22 January 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 22 January 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 83
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a person with a visual disability of 70% claim eligibility for a Civil Judge position when the recruitment notification specifies a disability range of 40%-50%? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a recent case, examining the extent of permissible restrictions on disability percentages for public service appointments. The core issue revolved around whether the State of Tamil Nadu could limit the eligibility criteria for partially blind candidates to those with a disability between 40% and 50% for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The appellant, V. Surendra Mohan, applied for the position of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the partially blind category. The State of Tamil Nadu had identified this post as suitable for persons with disabilities, including partially blind individuals, following the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Initially, the state identified 117 categories of posts suitable for disabled persons, including the Civil Judge post. However, a later notification specified that only those with a 40%-50% disability would be eligible for the Civil Judge position. The appellant, who had a 70% visual disability, was deemed ineligible, leading to the legal challenge.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras after being excluded from the list of candidates provisionally admitted to the oral test. The High Court issued an interim order allowing him to participate in the viva-voce, but his results were kept sealed. The appellant then amended his writ petition to challenge the State Government’s letter dated 08.08.2014, which set the 40%-50% disability limit. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant, with 70% disability, was ineligible as per the government decision and the TNPC notification. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(b) of the Act, 1995 defines “Blindness” as:
  (i) Total absence of sight. or (ii) Visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or (iii) Limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse;
• Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995 defines “disability” to include blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, loco motor disability, mental retardation, and mental illness.
• Section 2(t) of the Act, 1995 defines “person with disability” as a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority.
• Section 2(u) of the Act, 1995 defines “person with low vision” as a person with impairment of visual functioning even after treatment or standard refractive correction but who uses or is potentially capable of using vision for the planning or execution of a task with appropriate assistive device.
• Section 33 of the Act, 1995 mandates that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment not less than three percent of vacancies for persons with disabilities, with one percent each reserved for blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and loco motor disability or cerebral palsy. The proviso to Section 33 allows for exemptions based on the type of work.

The judgment also references Articles 233, 234, and 235 of the Constitution of India, which pertain to the control over judicial services vested with the respective High Courts. The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, framed under these articles, also play a role in the case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that since the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was identified under Section 32 of the Act, 1995, no restriction on disability to the extent of 40%-50% could be imposed.
• The exemption under the proviso to Section 33 was only for complete blindness, and since the appellant was not completely blind, he should not be excluded.
• The Act, 1995, does not specify any restriction that eligibility is only for those with a 40%-50% disability.
• The initial identification of the post in 2005 did not include any such restriction, and it was arbitrarily imposed later.
• The High Court wrongly relied on a proposed amendment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which was not yet finalized.
• No expert committee determined that only those with 40%-50% disability could perform the duties of a Civil Judge.
• The appellant, having worked as an Assistant Prosecuting Officer with 70% disability, was capable of performing the duties of a Civil Judge.
• The appellant was wrongly declared ineligible, depriving him of his right to be selected based on his marks in the written test and interview.

State of Tamil Nadu’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellant had only challenged the letter dated 08.08.2014 and not the notification dated 26.08.2014, which prescribed the 40%-50% disability requirement.
• Since the notification was not challenged, the appellant could not claim eligibility.
• The appellant, with 70% disability, was ineligible for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

High Court’s Arguments:

• The High Court argued that the appellant had not uploaded the disability certificate in his online application.
• The appellant had only mentioned “more than 40%” disability in his application.
• The disability certificate showed 70% disability, making him ineligible.
• The certificate did not state that the appellant could discharge the duties of a Civil Judge.
• The proposed amendment to the 2007 Rules was irrelevant, as the decision to limit disability to 40%-50% was made by the State Government with the High Court’s consent.
• The nature of a Civil Judge’s duties requires the ability to hear cases, record statements, and read documents, which the appellant could not perform.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant, suffering from a 70% visual disability, was eligible to participate in the selection as per the notification dated 26.08.2014 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission?
2. Whether the condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons is a valid condition?
3. Whether the decision of the State Government vide letter dated 08.08.2014, providing that only partially deaf and partially blind persons with 40%-50% disability are eligible, is in breach of the provisions of the 1995 Act and deserves to be set aside?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 640: The Supreme Court of India considered the recruitment of District Judges and other judicial officers in the context of reservation. It held that the High Court’s consultation is pivotal for judicial appointments, and any statutory provision without such consultation is against the constitutional scheme.
• Government of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 626: The Supreme Court of India laid down that reservation under Section 33 of the Act, 1995, is not dependent on identification, and the government has a duty to make appointments in the reserved posts.
• Union of India and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772: The Supreme Court of India examined the objects and reasons of the Act, 1995, and the manner of computing 3% reservation for persons with disabilities.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:
  • Section 2(b): Defines “Blindness.”
  • Section 2(i): Defines “disability.”
  • Section 2(t): Defines “person with disability.”
  • Section 2(u): Defines “person with low vision.”
  • Section 33: Mandates reservation for persons with disabilities.
• Constitution of India:
  • Articles 233, 234, and 235: Pertain to the control over judicial services by the High Courts.
  • Article 16(1): Relates to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
  • Article 16(4): Enables the State to make provisions for reservation in services.
• Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007: Regulates the appointment of judicial officers in Tamil Nadu.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 640:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of High Court consultation in judicial appointments.
• Government of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 626:* The Court cited this case to highlight the government’s duty to make appointments in reserved posts, but distinguished it from the present case, which dealt with eligibility criteria.
• Union of India and Another Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772:* The Court referred to this case to understand the objectives of the Act, 1995, but clarified that the present case was about eligibility, not the extent of reservation.
• Section 2(b) of the Act, 1995:* The Court used this definition to clarify the meaning of “blindness” in the context of the case.
• Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995:* The Court used this definition to understand the scope of “disability.”
• Section 2(t) of the Act, 1995:* The Court relied on this definition to define “person with disability” and the minimum disability percentage.
• Section 2(u) of the Act, 1995:* The Court used this definition to define “person with low vision.”
• Section 33 of the Act, 1995:* The Court referred to this section to explain the reservation of posts for persons with disabilities, but clarified that the present case was about eligibility criteria.
• Articles 233, 234, and 235 of the Constitution of India:* The Court used these articles to emphasize the High Court’s control over judicial services.
• Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India:* The Court noted that it relates to equality of opportunity in public employment.
• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India:* The Court acknowledged that this enables the State to make provisions for reservation.
• Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007:* The Court considered these rules to understand the appointment process of judicial officers in Tamil Nadu.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Notification: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the recruitment notification, which clearly specified the 40%-50% disability limit.
• Consultation with High Court: The Court noted that the decision to set the disability limit was made after consultation with the High Court, which has control over judicial services.
• Nature of the Job: The Court considered the nature of the duties of a Civil Judge, which require the ability to read documents, record statements, and hear cases, and found that a 50% disability limit was reasonable.
• Statutory Compliance: The Court found that the State had complied with the requirements of the Act, 1995, by reserving posts for persons with disabilities.
• Reasonable Restriction: The Court held that the 40%-50% disability limit was a reasonable restriction, given the nature of the job and the need for judicial officers to have certain faculties.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they did not align with the specific terms of the notification and the need for judicial officers to have certain functional abilities. The Court also noted that the State had consulted with the High Court in setting the disability criteria, which supported the decision’s validity.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, stating that the prescription of a 40%-50% disability limit for partially blind and partially deaf candidates was valid and did not contravene the Act, 1995, or any other statutory provision. The Court emphasized that the State, in consultation with the High Court, was empowered to set eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

“The advertisement, thus, clearly provided that post of Civil Judge has been identified as suitable for partially deaf/partially blind/ortho categories of differently abled persons (40%-50% disability).”

“Thus, according to own case of the appellant, he was suffering with disability of 70%, which made him ineligible for the post of Civil Judge advertised by notification dated 26.08.2014 since the disability required for the post was only 40%-50%.”

“The State, which is appointing authority of Public Service in consultation with the High Court with reference to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) can very well lay down the essential eligibilities and requirement for the post.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case; both judges concurred in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Eligibility Criteria: Public service recruitment notifications must be strictly adhered to, and candidates must meet all specified eligibility criteria.
• Disability Limits: The State can set reasonable limits on disability percentages for certain posts, especially in judicial services, after consulting with the High Court.
• Consultation Importance: Decisions regarding eligibility criteria for judicial posts must be made in consultation with the High Court, emphasizing the judiciary’s control over its services.
• Reasonable Restrictions: Imposing a reasonable restriction on the extent of disability is permissible to ensure that candidates can perform the duties of the post.
• Statutory Compliance: While the State must reserve posts for persons with disabilities, it can also set reasonable eligibility criteria in line with the nature of the job.

This judgment clarifies that while the State must provide for reservation forpersons with disabilities, it also has the power to set reasonable eligibility criteria, including specific disability percentages, in consultation with the High Court for judicial posts. The case highlights the need for candidates to carefully review and adhere to the specifications in recruitment notifications. This case sets a precedent for future recruitment processes involving persons with disabilities, particularly in judicial services, emphasizing the balance between inclusivity and the functional requirements of the job.