LI Network
Published on: December 26, 2023 at 14:50 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently outlined directives to ensure equal opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in appointments to Higher Judicial Services.
Emphasizing the need for a delicate balance between administrative requirements and the imperative to enhance opportunities for PwD candidates, the Court responded to a petition challenging the 2023 notification for District & Sessions Judge appointments.
In the verdict, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V issued clear instructions for the identification of posts, calculation of backlog vacancies, provision of age relaxation, allocation of grace marks, and a special recruitment drive. These measures aim to uphold the constitutional mandate outlined in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate with a 40% locomotor disability, contested the notification for not earmarking vacancies for disabled candidates and for not providing upper-age relaxation and grace marks. Alleging a violation of disability rights laws, the petitioner argued that the notification contradicted the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court, acknowledging the petitioner’s plea, directed the government to promptly decide on age relaxation criteria for the post of District & Sessions Judge in Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. It noted a delay in implementing the provisions of the 2016 Act and stressed the necessity of aligning with age relaxation practices by the Public Service Commission and other states.
Regarding grace marks, the Court highlighted the petitioner’s unequal treatment and directed the authorities to establish relaxed criteria for disabled candidates, ensuring a level playing field.
The Court mandated the determination of grace marks for disabled candidates when the next notification is issued.
Addressing the backlog vacancies for PwD candidates, the Court found that the backlog vacancies had been identified and instructed their expeditious filling.
The Court referred to precedent decisions emphasizing the significance of identifying posts for PwD candidates as per the 2016 Act.
In conclusion, the Court held that it is imperative for the state to uphold its constitutional commitments and comply with the statutory obligations outlined in the 2016 Act.
The Court, while recognizing its role in safeguarding the rights of disabled individuals, emphasized that it would not remain passive when such rights are jeopardized in public employment.
The Court disposed of the writ petition and ordered the identification of posts, calculation of backlog vacancies, initiation of steps for age relaxation and grace marks, and the commencement of a special recruitment drive for disabled candidates.
Case Title: Biju Sundar v State of Kerala
