In a significant legal development, the court has overturned a decision impacting the seniority of a handicapped candidate, emphasizing the importance of upholding fundamental rights under the Constitution. The ruling highlights the need for sensitivity towards physically disabled individuals and the duty of the State to facilitate their exercise of rights. The court’s analysis focused on the discriminatory nature of the decision and the obligation to interpret laws and circulars in line with international human rights principles. Read on to understand the legal intricacies of the case and the implications for similar situations.
Facts
- The Appellant, a handicapped candidate of the ‘OBC’ category with educational qualifications B.A., B.Ed, was selected as a Senior Teacher through a direct competitive examination.
- The Appellant was appointed as a Senior Teacher and allotted Ganganagar Zone based on an Office Order dated 30 July 1993.
- The Division Bench dismissed the appeal citing the Explanation to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971.
- The reduction of seniority of the Appellant in the State List was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory by the Division Bench.
- The Appellant made a representation for transfer to his home district Alwar due to his physical disability.
- The Appellant was released by the Principal to join the Government Secondary School at Goonti in Alwar.
- The Appellant joined the Government Secondary School in Alwar on 13 November 2002.
- The Appellant’s seniority was downgraded without prior information regarding the consequences of transfer.
- The Appellant’s representation to restore seniority was not acted upon.
- The State Level seniority of the Appellant was changed by the Commissioner of Secondary Education.
- The Appellant was eventually promoted to Junior Lecturer and posted in Alwar in 2016.
- The Writ Petition challenging the downgrading of seniority was dismissed by the Single Bench in 2017.
- The Appellant was appointed as a Senior Teacher in Hanumangarh under the category of handicapped candidates.
- Efforts were made to transfer the Appellant closer to his residence due to his physical disability.
- The Appellant was eventually transferred to Government Secondary School in Alwar.
Also Read: Interpretation of Corporate Guarantor under IBC
Analysis
- Government of India’s O.M. dated 29 May 1986 denied the benefit of previous service and was declared unconstitutional in the case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors.
- Any rule, regulation, or executive instruction that takes away service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department while counting seniority in the deputed post is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and can be struck down.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sub-Inspector Rooplal emphasized that rules impacting the seniority of deputationists must not infringe on their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
- The UNCRPD, ratified by India, aims to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.
- The Circular dated 20 July 2000 benefitted handicapped employees by allowing them to be posted at convenient locations for assistance.
- Excluding existing handicapped employees from the Circular’s benefit would violate their fundamental right to equality under the Indian Constitution.
- All laws and circulars for the benefit of the physically disabled must be interpreted in line with the principles of the UNCRPD.
- Human rights, including the rights of the disabled, have existed from the inception of civilization and must be respected.
- The State has a duty to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights for the disabled, including the right to live with dignity.
- The Circular facilitates the posting of disabled persons to places of their choice to the extent feasible, considering the challenges they face.
- Handicapped candidates seeking transfer to a place near their ordinary residence are not affected by the Explanation mentioned.
- The High Court should have shown more sensitivity towards physically disabled individuals.
- The vires of the Explanation were not challenged in the Writ Petition.
- The Explanation does not impact seniority at the State level.
- The High Court failed to consider the difference between physically disabled individuals and able-bodied persons in the context of the Explanation.
Also Read: Judicial Promotion Dispute Resolved
Decision
- The High Court’s judgments and orders are set aside.
- Treating unequals as equals violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The Office Order downgrading the Appellant’s seniority is quashed.
- The seniority of the Appellant is to be restored to the original position considering past service.
- The appeal is allowed.
Also Read: Ex post facto Environmental Clearance in Bio-Medical Waste Case
Case Title: NET RAM YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2022 INSC 822)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005237-005237 / 2022
