Madras High Court: While deciding the present issue that whether the petitioner who has been declared to be partially blind with the percentage of disability at 70% was eligible to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan, JJ., dismissed the petition with regard to the nature of duties of a Judge. The Court further stated that the Government, in consultation with the Court, had proposed to restrict the applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those, whose disability ranges from 40-50%.
The Tamil Nadu government by way of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 11.04.2005 had identified the post of Civil Judge wherein reservation under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 can be made. In subsequent Notifications (2012 and 2014), in accordance with the Proviso to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, the benefit of reservation for the physically challenged could be availed by those blind and deaf candidates, whose percentage of disability is 40-50%. The petitioner had applied for the said post and secured the requisite qualifying marks in the examination and the viva-voce, but his name was not forwarded by the Service Commission due to some confusion regarding the entitlement of the petitioner. S.V. Narayan appearing for the petitioner put forth that the right conferred by the 1995 Act is absolute and the Executive cannot make any exception violating the spirit of the Act.
The Court took up an in-depth analysis of the law and the circulars in question. It was observed that in 2010 an appointment of a completely blind candidate led to certain complications after which the administration in consultation with this Court proposed an amendment to the Recruitment Rules and bringing in the impugned Notification No.49858/Cts-I/2014-4 dated 08.08.2014. The Court further observed that the petitioner only challenged the Government Letter dated 08.08.2014, but did not challenge Paragraph 4.F of the impugned Notification, therefore the petitioner cannot achieve the desired outcome. It was further observed that Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act itself gives the benefit of reservation to persons who suffer upto 40% of disability. Thus the impugned Notification does not amend the fundamental feature of reservation under the Sections and does not nullify the legislation in any manner. V. Surendra Mohan v. State of