In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities, the Karnataka High Court has held that the suitability of a PwD candidate cannot be determined solely based on a medical certificate. The Court emphasized that a functional assessment of the candidate must be taken into account to determine their eligibility for a government post.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind delivered this judgment while allowing a writ appeal filed by Anil Kumar S B. The appellant challenged the order of a single judge which had earlier denied him appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category.
"What requires consideration, in this context, is the functional assessment. In determining the suitability or eligibility of a candidate with a disability, the functional assessment, beyond just the medical evaluation, is crucial." the Court stated.
Anil Kumar S B, who has a 75% locomotor disability, was already working as an Assistant in BESCOM pursuant to a notification dated 07.03.2015 under the PwD quota. Later, BESCOM issued a new employment notification dated 08.09.2016 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Kumar applied under the PwD category but his name was excluded from the provisional selection list. The authorities claimed that no eligible PwD candidate was available for the post as per the prescribed criteria.
Challenging this, the appellant argued that since he was already found suitable for the post of Assistant and the nature of duties for both roles—Assistant and Assistant Accounts Officer—are almost identical, he must be considered eligible for direct recruitment to the AAO post under the same quota. He also pointed out that the next promotional post for an Assistant is AAO, for which he is already eligible.
The respondents contended that the eligibility criteria for the 2016 notification were different and required a specific type of disability, limiting eligibility to those with a disability in only one upper limb. Since the appellant had disabilities affecting both upper and lower limbs, they argued that he did not meet the conditions prescribed for direct recruitment under the notification.
Rejecting this argument, the Court observed:
The appellant, despite suffering from disability affecting both arms, has already been appointed to the post of Assistant. The appellant is also eligible for promotion to the next post in due course, which is the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. While promoting, no additional eligibility criteria have been prescribed.
The Bench further noted that if the appellant is eligible for promotion to the AAO post based on functional capability, then denying him the same post through direct recruitment on the basis of rigid criteria contradicts fairness.
"When the appellant is deemed eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, it is difficult to accept that he is not eligible for direct recruitment to the same post."
The Court also accepted that the job responsibilities for both positions are nearly identical and the appellant had been performing his duties effectively. It highlighted that if no other eligible PwD candidates are available in the respective category, the eligibility criteria can be relaxed.
If there is no other eligible candidate under the PwD quota available in the respective category, the eligibility criteria may be relaxed. Upon such relaxation, the appellant would be eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.
Refusing the single judge's reasoning that participation in the selection process without objection bars the candidate from later challenging it, the Division Bench clarified:
"The appellant has not challenged the eligibility conditions or the selection process. What the appellant has pleaded is his eligibility for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer."
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Court directed BESCOM to appoint Anil Kumar S B to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The Court further granted him notional seniority as per the final selection list published under the 2016 notification.
Case Title: Anil Kumar S B vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Another
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.1673 OF 2024
Appearance: Advocates Dhananjay V. Joshi and S. Swaroop represented the appellant. Advocate D.J. Rakshitha appeared for respondent No. 1, and Advocate Likith R. Prakash for respondent No. 2.
