Fayaz Bukhari
Srinagar, Oct 21: The State High Court has held that a person with temporary disability cannot seek benefits as are available to a person with permanent disability.
Justice Tashi Rabstan gave this judgment while dismissing a petition seeking appointment of a woman for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in Public Works (R&B) Department advertised along with other posts by SSRB on the ground that she is physically disabled.
“…….petitioner’s Disability Certificate is not a “Permanent Disability Certificate” and the Certificate, relied upon by her, therefore, suggests that her disability is not ‘Permanent’ that would make her eligible to exhort the same benefits as are available to a person having “Permanent Disability Certificate”, held Justice Tashi Rabstan.
Petitioner stated to have qualified the objective type written test and shortlisted for interview along-with other candidates for the post in question.
After conducting interview, selection list of candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) was issued, in which petitioner did not find place whereas another person was selected.
The moment petitioner came to know about her non-inclusion in the selection list, she approached the Board authorities with the contention that as she had secured 55 points, and the selectee had secured 50.750 points only.
Petitioner was informed by respondent Board that her Handicapped Category Certificate had not been considered for the reason that it was valid for five years only.
Aggrieved of her exclusion from selection list, she approached at portals of this Court seeking that the selection of private respondent be quashed and her name be included in the selection list.
“Petitioner has Disability Certificate, but it indicates its validity for five years only as according to the Certificate Issuing Authority, petitioner’s disability is not a Permanent Disability. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to say that the Disability Certificate of petitioner is a ‘Permanent Disability Certificate’ and the said Certificate makes her entitled to be selected and appointed on the post in question”, Justice Tashi said.
Court while having a glance on rule position in regard said a person having disability, which is not variable and where there is no chances of change in degree of disability, is entitled to have a “Permanent Disability Certificate” and a person having disability, which is not permanent and where there is chances of change in variation in degree of disability, is not entitled to have a “Permanent Disability Certificate”.
Court while referring to the Act and Rule governing the field said it provided and envisaged that after due examination, if Medical Board finds that there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability, a ‘Permanent Disability Certificate’ can be issued.
However, if it is found that there are chances of variation in degree of disability, Medical Board should indicate period of validity in the certificate.
“So, this Court cannot go beyond the sum and substance of Disability Certificate, placed on record by petitioner and ask respondents to select or offer appointment to petitioner as if she possesses ‘Permanent Disability Certificate’, in that, it will open a floodgate for others to follow suit”, Court said.
“Disability Certificate, on which petitioner relied upon, has been issued by a competent authority and the same cannot be discussed beyond its contents. Be that as it may, writ petitions are without any merit and liable to be dismissed. As a sequel of above discussion, writ petitions are dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any, passed shall stand vacated”, Court concluded.
Selectee insisted that in Select List, issued by respondent Board, she was figuring at serial no.46 under Handicapped Category and apart from him, another candidate, was also selected under handicapped category and that since disability of petitioner was not permanent but was temporary, as such, petitioner was not considered by the Board for selection under handicapped category.
Court has also said, the Government is required to identify posts, reserved for persons with disabilities in the establishments and at periodical intervals, not exceeding three years, Government is obliged to review the list of posts identified and update the list taking into consideration the development in technology.
“Three percent of vacancies are to be kept aside in every establishment, over which persons or class of persons with disabilities are to be appointed”, court said.
Court while giving the percentage of posts for suffering from disabilities said one percent each is to be reserved for persons suffering from, blindness or low vision; hearing impairment; and loco-motor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability, meaning thereby that in case of appointment of three persons, required to be made.
“Such appointment should be made by reserving: one post for the person(s) suffering from blindness or low vision; second post for a person hearing impairment; and third post for the person(s) suffering from loco-motor disability or cerebral palsy”, court said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel