V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu
- shrey singh
- Jan 4, 2020
- 4 min read
V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17223 of 2015 decided on 22.01.2019
Bench
Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ
Fact
An advocate having 70% disability(visual impairing), had challenged a letter dated 08.08.2014 issued by Tamil Nadu Government stipulating a limit of 40%-50% disability for the selection for the post of Civil judge.
Held
The Court said that a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable
Summary
Question of law
Whether the Petitioner who was suffering with disability of 70% (visual impairing) was eligible to participate in the selection as per notification of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission?
[ Fact: The State of Tamil Nadu issued letter dated 08.08.2014 to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPC) to go ahead with the notification for the 162 posts of Civil Judge, announcing 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf for the selection in question. The TNPC issued notification dated 26.08.2014 inviting applications through online for direct recruitment in furtherance of it.]
Argument Advance
Petitioner
Respondent
The argument of the Petitioner is that the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having been identified under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1995”) in which no restriction of disability to the extent of 40%-50% is provided. It was submitted that exemption having been issued under proviso to Section 33 to the complete blindness, the Petitioner who is not completely blind but has 70% disability cannot be said to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He submits that Act, 1995 does not provide for any such restriction that the eligibility is of only those who suffer from disability of 40%- 50%.
It was further submitted that there was no determination by any expert committee that it is those only who suffer from 40%-50% disability can discharge the functions of the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Neither the High Court nor the State Government constituted any expert committee to look into the above aspect of the matter.
The Respondent submits that the Petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 26.08.2014 issued by the TNPC. He submits that in the notification of the TNPC requirement of disability at 40%-50% having been condition prescribed, without challenging the notification the Petitioner cannot contend that he is eligible. He submits that the Petitioner had although referred to notification dated 26.08.2014 in para 3 of the writ petition but failed to challenge the said notification which is a sufficient ground for dismissing his writ petition.
He submits that, the Petitioner being 70% disabled is ineligible to participate in the selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and his writ petition has rightly been dismissed
Judgment
The Court held that the Petitioner has failed to challenge of the notification dated 26.08.2014 and therefore he cannot be allowed to challenge the condition of 40%-50% partial blindness.
Question of law
Whether the condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons is a valid condition?
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the condition of 40%-50% disability for partially blind and partially deaf categories of disabled persons is a valid. The Supreme Court also affirming the findings of High Court said that in so far as the area of discharge of functions and duties of the judicial officers viz., Civil Judges is concerned this involves performances of strenuous duties:- they have to read documents, pleadings and ascertain facts and issues; monitor proceedings to ensure that all applicable rules and procedures are strictly followed without any violation; advise advocates, litigants and Court personnel regarding conduct, issues, and proceedings; participate in judicial proceedings to help in resolving disputes; preside over hearings and hear allegations made by plaintiffs and defendants to determine whether the evidence supports the charges or the averments made; write decisions on cases independently after reading and analysing evidence and documents; while recording evidence observe the demeanour of witnesses etc. Impaired vision can only make it extremely difficult, even impossible, to perform any of these functions at all.
All these apart, he/she has to perform duties such as conducting inquiries, recording dying declarations, going through identification parades, record statements of victims, conduct in-camera proceedings, passing orders on remand and extension and other administrative functions. In so far as District judges are concerned, apart from performing their usual judicial duties, they have to perform a myriad administrative duties also. Therefore, creating any reservation in appointment for those with disabilities beyond the 50% level is far from advisable as it may create practical and seemingly other avoidable complications.
Comments