The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a candidate with low vision who faces difficulty reading material required for a typing test cannot be treated differently from a candidate whose physical disability impairs the ability to type. The court emphasized a practical assessment of disability, stating that difficulty in reading a document to be typed must be considered on par with difficulty in typing when evaluating exemption from a typing test.
Background of the Case
The ruling came as the high court upheld an order directing the Chandigarh Administration to appoint a low-vision candidate as a clerk against a reserved vacancy, granting her exemption from the typing test. The candidate, represented by advocate Rohit Seth, had successfully cleared the written examination for the posts of clerk and steno-typist (English) advertised on September 29, 2019. Of the 356 advertised posts, 14 were reserved for persons with disabilities.
The Candidate's Struggle
Before appearing in the typing test, the candidate requested a scribe to dictate the text to be typed, but her request was declined because it was not made at the initial stage of the recruitment process. She subsequently appeared in the test but failed to qualify. She then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that she was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to compete for a reserved post and that several other disabled candidates had been exempted from the typing test.
Arguments Before the Tribunal and High Court
The Chandigarh Administration contended that under applicable instructions, exemption from the typing test was available only to candidates whose physical disability prevented them from typing. They maintained that the candidate did not fall within that category. However, the Tribunal rejected this distinction, holding that once low vision is recognized as a disability entitling a candidate to reservation, it cannot be excluded from consideration for exemption where the disability creates a barrier in undertaking the typing test. The Tribunal directed that the candidate be considered for appointment.
High Court's Observations
Affirming the Tribunal's view, the high court observed that typing necessarily involves reading and coordination between the eyes and hands. The bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda noted: “It cannot be said that a person, who can read properly, but has difficulty to type is the only category to be treated as a physically handicapped.” The court further stated that a candidate might be able to type but have difficulty reading the document to be typed, and such disability cannot be ignored while considering exemption.
The bench observed: “No valid reason has come forward as to why a candidate having low vision and difficulty in reading the document, though able to type, cannot be granted exemption from passing the typing test.” It held that the impact of disability must be appreciated practically, and disability to read in order to type is to be treated at par with disability to type.
Interpretation of Disability Benefits
The court emphasized that disability-benefit provisions should be interpreted to advance their object. Referring to the instructions relied upon by the Administration, the bench held that a restrictive interpretation could not be accepted. The court observed: “The disability has to be appreciated firstly qua the aspect that whether such candidate will be able to do a particular job in a manner required like a normal person.”
Unfilled Reserved Vacancies
A significant factor was that two of the 14 reserved vacancies had remained unfilled. The bench noted that granting relief to the candidate would not disturb any selected candidate but would merely fill a vacancy reserved for persons with disabilities. The court stated: “It would have been a different scenario if all the 14 posts so declared reserved for disabled persons would have been filled up and the benefit was given to the respondent at the cost of another candidate.”
Conclusion
Dismissing the administration's petition, the high court concluded that no ground for interference had been made out. However, the bench clarified that the Tribunal's order was sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Significance of the Ruling
- The judgment recognizes that disability affecting a candidate's ability to read material required for typing may be as relevant as disability affecting the physical act of typing.
- The court adopted a practical assessment of the effect of disability on task performance rather than confining itself to rigid classifications.
- The ruling underscores that beneficial provisions for persons with disabilities should ordinarily receive an interpretation that advances their purpose.
- The bench approved the Tribunal's approach of examining the actual difficulty faced by the candidate in undertaking the typing test.
- The court considered that two reserved vacancies remained unfilled and granting relief would not displace any selected candidate.
