Facts
The applicant, Mohammad Saqib, a person with 54% locomotor disability due to Post Head Injury Right Hemiparesis, appeared for the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination, 2022, conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2He applied under the UR+OT+LW/Y(O) Cert req. category and participated in the examination process, including a skill test (typing test) scheduled for June 26, 2023.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2.1Due to his physical limitation, the applicant submitted a prescribed certificate and an undertaking seeking exemption from the typing test as per Para 14.9.7.6.7 of the examination notice.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2.2; p.4, para. 2.3This was supported by a certificate of permanent disability dated June 21, 2023, and documents from Dr. Vibha Sharma, Professor, Department of Clinical Psychology, IHBAS, Delhi.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2.4A scribe was provided to the applicant during the morning session of the examination.
Source reference: p.9, para. 4; p.17, para. 6.9On June 27, 2023, the applicant also emailed all relevant documents to the respondents, seeking exemption.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2.5However, when the results were declared, the column concerning exemption from the typing test for the applicant was left blank, and his result was not declared.
Source reference: p.5, para. 2.5The respondents argued that the applicant failed to comply with mandatory instructions by not submitting the requisite documents independently for the second shift of the examination, despite having submitted them during the morning session.
Source reference: p.5, para. 3.1; p.6, para. 3.2Issues
1. Whether the respondents were justified in not granting exemption from the typing test to the applicant, a PwD candidate, despite his submission of medical certificates and an undertaking, leading to the non-declaration of his result?
Source reference: p.2, para. 1, reliefs A, B, C; p.5, para. 2.52. Whether the requirement to re-submit documents for exemption from the typing test in the second shift, after having submitted and had them accepted in the morning session on the same day, was mandatory for a PwD candidate?
Source reference: p.17, para. 6.9; p.18, para. 6.9Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle of "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities, as enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and interpreted in precedents like *Vikash Kumar* (not explicitly cited regarding its interpretation but referred to in *Arnab Roy*) and *Arnab Roy Versus Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr*.
Source reference: p.10, para. 6.1; p.11, para. 6.3It also considered the directives from *Mission Accessibility Versus Union of India & Ors.*, emphasizing the constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p.12, para. 6.4; p.14, para. 12The court referenced various DOPT O.M.s regarding typing test exemptions for physically handicapped persons.
Source reference: p.15, para. 6.5Furthermore, it affirmed that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against anyone, including private entities, as held in *Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others*.
Source reference: p.20, para. 6.11While acknowledging the mandatory nature of examination instructions for general candidates, as in *Bedanga Talukdar Vs Saifudaullah Khan* and *Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Punjab, Chandigarh*, the court distinguished their application in cases involving PwD candidates.
Source reference: p.7, para. 3.3; p.7, para. 3.4; p.20, para. 6.10Reasoning
The court found that the central issue revolved around "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities, a principle supported by various judicial precedents and Government of India O.M.s.
Source reference: p.10, para. 6.1; p.15, para. 6.5It was an undisputed fact that the applicant had submitted the prescribed certificate and undertaking for exemption during the morning session of the examination, and a scribe was provided, indicating the respondents' awareness and acceptance of his disability status.
Source reference: p.15, para. 6.6; p.16, para. 6.7; p.17, para. 6.9The court rejected the respondents' contention that the applicant was mandatorily required to re-submit the same documents for the second shift.
Source reference: p.17, para. 6.9; p.18, para. 6.9It reasoned that such a requirement would defeat the purpose of providing reasonable accommodation to PwD candidates and was not explicitly stated in the examination brochure or scheme as a separate submission for the second session.
Source reference: p.17, para. 6.9; p.18, para. 6.9The court further emphasized that "exemption" should be viewed as an adjustment or recognition rather than a mere waiver, to encourage participation.
Source reference: p.22, para. 7It also highlighted that the case laws cited by the respondents regarding the mandatory nature of examination conditions were general and did not specifically address the unique circumstances of PwD candidates.
Source reference: p.20, para. 6.10The court reinforced that the rights of disabled persons to equal access and reasonable accommodation are meaningful and enforceable against all authorities.
Source reference: p.20, para. 6.11Holding
The Original Application was allowed.
The court set aside the respondents' action of not considering the applicant for the post due to his non-appearance in the typing test.
Source reference: p.22, para. 8.2It directed the respondents to declare the applicant's revised result, treating him as exempt from the typing test requirement.
Source reference: p.22, para. 8.2Furthermore, if found eligible and successful on his merit, the respondents were ordered to issue an offer of appointment, subject to other eligibility conditions, within two months of receiving the order.
Source reference: p.23, paras. 8.3-8.4The applicant is to be entitled to consequential benefits on a notional basis.
Source reference: p.23, paras. 8.3-8.4Original Court PDF
Mohammad Saqibvs.Union of India & Ors. [O.A. No. 2627/2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in