Facts
The applicant, a 44-year-old individual with 60% Locomotor Disability (PwBD), applied for Level-1 posts under the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019
Source reference: p.2, para. 3He also claimed Course Completed Act Apprentice (CCAA) status, having completed training from 09.08.2010 to 08.08.2013
Source reference: p.2, para. 3.1A corrigendum dated 22.04.2022 granted CCAA candidates a one-third weightage in NCVT marks and exemption from the Physical Efficiency Test
Source reference: p.2, para. 3.1The applicant's normalized Computer Based Test score was 18.45303, which increased to 38.06392 after CCAA weightage
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.2However, he was not called for document verification as his score was below the UR cut-off of 40.16915, though it was higher than the cut-off for OBC (30.01352), SC (30.00658), and ST (30.45988) categories under CCAA
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.3His representations dated 08.02.2023 and 06.03.2023 were not considered
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.3The applicant then filed O.A. No. 350/401/2023, leading to a direction from the Tribunal on 30.03.2023 to consider his representations
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.4Subsequently, the respondents rejected his claim via a speaking order dated 05.06.2023, citing that he did not meet the cut-off for PwBD or UR categories and that horizontal reservation benefits could only be extended under one category
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.5The applicant is challenging this speaking order
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.5Issues
Whether the speaking order dated 05.06.2023, which rejected the applicant's claim for appointment on the ground that horizontal reservation benefits can only be extended under one category, is legally sustainable
Source reference: p.2, para. 2(a); p.3, para. 3.5; p.4, para. 5; p.5, para. 6.2Whether the candidature of a PwBD candidate, who has secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for certain reserved categories under the same recruitment process, requires reconsideration in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration
Source reference: p.5, para. 6.1Law Applied
The court applied the principle of horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwBD) as established in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University (2012 SCC OnLine Del 4788)
Source reference: p.4, para. 4.1; p.6, para. 6.3Anamol Bhandari held that reservation for disabled persons is horizontal, cutting across vertical categories (SC, ST, OBC & General) and that PwBD candidates are socially backward and entitled to relaxations similar to SC/ST candidates
Source reference: p.6, para. 6.3; p.7, para. 22This principle was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration (2020 SCC OnLine SC 1172), which stated that PwBD are socially backward and, at the very least, entitled to the same benefits as SC/ST candidates
Source reference: p.4, para. 4.1; p.9, para. 6.5; p.10, para. 4The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Sanjeeva Reddy v. State of Telangana (2022 SCC OnLine TS 2928) reiterated that PwBD candidates are entitled to the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST candidates and emphasized the principle of reasonable accommodation for disability rights
Source reference: p.4, para. 4.1; p.7, para. 6.4; p.8, para. 44These precedents collectively mandate that horizontal reservation must be harmoniously worked within the framework of vertical reservation to ensure meaningful participation of persons with disabilities
Source reference: p.10, para. 6.6Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim was based on the premise that horizontal reservation benefits could only be extended under one category
Source reference: p.5, para. 6.2This approach failed to consider the binding principles laid down in Anamol Bhandari and approved by the Supreme Court in Aryan Raj
Source reference: p.10, para. 6.7The Anamol Bhandari judgment established that PwBD candidates are as socially backward as SC/ST categories and should receive similar relaxations, ensuring parity across all categories
Source reference: p.6, para. 6.3The Aryan Raj judgment affirmed that PwBD candidates are entitled to the same benefits as SC/ST candidates
Source reference: p.10, para. 4The Sanjeeva Reddy case further underscored that PwBD candidates should receive the same relaxation benefits as SC/ST candidates and that limited vacancies or rigid application of cut-offs for PwBD is untenable
Source reference: p.8, para. 43, 47Given that the applicant's score of 38.06392 (after CCAA weightage) was higher than the cut-off marks for OBC, SC, and ST categories under CCAA, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents' speaking order did not reflect an examination of the applicant’s claim in light of these precedents
Source reference: p.3, para. 3.3; p.5, para. 6.2; p.10, para. 6.7The rejection, based on limiting horizontal benefit to one category, did not analyze whether such an interpretation denied statutory protection contemplated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Source reference: p.10, para. 6.7Therefore, the mater required fresh consideration based on the established legal principles governing horizontal reservation
Source reference: p.11, para. 6.8Holding
The Tribunal set aside the impugned speaking order dated 05.06.2023
The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s candidature afresh in light of the principles laid down in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration and other applicable precedents relating to horizontal reservation for PwBD candidates
Source reference: p.11, para. 7They are to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, and the outcome must be communicated to the applicant forthwith
Source reference: p.11, para. 7The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the applicant
Source reference: p.11, para. 7.1Original Court PDF
Anant Kumar v. The Union of India, O.A. No. 350/1416/2023
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in