100% blindness alone cannot disqualify candidate from an LDC post, Tripura High Court rules; orders appointmentenoside

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate with certified 100% permanent visual impairment, applied for an LDC post through the JRBT recruitment process.

He was selected and offered appointment by the PWD (R&B) Department, with the offer recording his disability category as “Blindness/Benchmark-A”.

After the petitioner submitted documents and was examined by the State Appellate Medical Board, which confirmed 100% permanent visual impairment, the Department cancelled his offer on the ground that he did not meet the functional-classification and physical-requirement codes for an LDC under the State’s 24 January 2020 notification.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation by writ petition.

1. Whether the Department could cancel the petitioner’s offer of appointment on the ground that his 100% blindness made him unsuitable for the LDC post, despite the applicable disability-reservation provisions and the State’s identification of LDC posts as suitable for persons with disabilities.

2. Whether the cancellation was arbitrary and legally unsustainable in light of the petitioner’s disclosure and certification of his disability during the recruitment process.

Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines a “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the competent authority.

Section 34(1) requires reservation of at least 4% of vacancies in government establishments for persons with benchmark disabilities, including persons with blindness and low vision; exemption of a government establishment is subject to the statutory notification process.

The Court also relied on Tripura’s 9 January 2019 memorandum providing for disability reservation, including for blindness and low vision, and the State’s 24 January 2020 notification identifying LDC posts in all departments as suitable for persons with disabilities.

The Court found that the petitioner had not concealed his blindness: his disability was recorded in the recruitment process, his appointment offer identified him as a candidate under the blindness benchmark category, and the Appellate Medical Board confirmed his 100% permanent visual impairment.

Since the applicable State materials included blindness and low vision within the reserved categories and identified LDC posts as suitable for persons with disabilities, the Department could not reject his appointment merely by invoking functional-requirement codes.

The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on the petitioner’s differing use of a thumb impression and signature as unsupported by evidence of concealment and insufficient to justify cancellation.

It therefore held the cancellation arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to natural justice.

It directed the respondents to issue a fresh appointment within three months and, within a further month after issuing the offer, to issue a posting order in the same or another State Government department, subject to the stated conditions.