Appointment of visually impaired candidate
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has adjourned the hearing of two Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI), challenging a judgment directing the appointment of a visually impaired candidate, Shivani Misri, for the post of Junior Executive (Law), under the PwBD category.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal deferred the hearing to September 22, 2025, after it was brought to the court’s attention that the respondent’s objections filed on August 5 were not yet on record. The Bench directed the Registrar Judicial to ascertain the reason for this procedural lapse.
Meanwhile, it requested the contempt court to defer proceedings related to the matter until the appeal is decided.
The appellant, AAI, was represented by Advocates Digvijay Rai, Inderjeet Gupta and Yatin Mahajan. The respondent Shivani Misri was represented by Advocates Nikhil Padha and Akarshan Magotra.
The AAI is aggrieved by the judgment dated April 29, 2025, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 2326/2024 and Writ Petition (C) No. 596/2024, wherein the single bench quashed the cancellation of the respondent’s selection on the grounds of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
In its appeal, AAI has highlighted a discrepancy in the respondent’s disability certification. While the respondent initially submitted a certificate dated September 5, 2003, classifying her as a “low vision” candidate, a subsequent certificate dated June 3, 2024, identifies her as 100% blind. The AAI contends that this contradiction, along with a medical reassessment on October 21, 2024, which found her unable to perform visual tasks, renders her functionally ineligible for the post.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that the medical board’s conclusions are not binding and cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikas Kumar Versus UPSC, which emphasizes reasonable accommodation and inclusive hiring practices.
With the matter now adjourned, the contempt court has been asked to hold proceedings in abeyance until the Division Bench pronounces its verdict.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
