Bombay High Court sets aside railways’ rejection of 75% blind candidate, invokes ‘reasonable accommodation’ doctrine

Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna directed the Railways to reconsider Asha Shinde’s candidature.

‘Reasonable accommodation’

• In providing relief to those who are disabled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief-oriented and not obstructive or lethargic, the court held.
• The principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in International Conventions, established jurisprudence and the RPwD Act mandate that accommodations be provided to Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
• Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality.
• The commitment to ensure equal opportunities necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where merit is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflect fairness and justice.

• Relying on recent Supreme Court pronouncements, including Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited and the suo motu decision in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the high court underscored that reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary concession but a prerequisite to assessing eligibility.
• Applying this principle, the high court observed that even assuming the Railways’ interpretation on equivalence was correct, the petitioner, as a person with a benchmark disability, was entitled to accommodation before being declared ineligible.
• “The action of the Respondents in rejecting her candidature would, in our view, be in violation of the principles of reasonable accommodation,” the bench held.
• The court rejected the submission that the petitioner was seeking an impermissible relaxation of standards.
• Instead, it characterised her plea as falling squarely within the statutory framework of the RPwD Act.

Directions, timeline

• Allowing the writ petition, the court quashed the rejection letter dated August 22, 2024.
• It directed the railways to reconsider Shinde’s candidature for the Group D Level 1 post within three weeks of uploading the order.
• The court also ordered that one post be kept vacant in the interim.
• The petition was made absolute with no order as to costs.

From successful candidate to disqualification

• The case traces back to an advertisement issued on February 23, 2019, inviting applications for various posts in the Indian Railways.
• Shinde, who has 75 per cent permanent blindness, applied under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities or PwBD category.
• She appeared for the examination, cleared it with qualifying marks, and was subsequently called for document verification and medical examination on February 14, 2024.
• Months later, on August 22, 2024, she received a rejection letter stating that the “Uttama” qualification she had obtained was not recognised as equivalent to SSC (matriculation), and therefore she did not meet the minimum educational qualification required for the Level 1 post.
• The letter effectively disqualified her despite her success in the examination process.
• Challenging this communication, Shinde moved the high court seeking quashing of the rejection and a direction to consider her candidature.

High court rejects preliminary objection

• The Centre opposed the petition at the threshold, arguing that service-related matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
• The high court, however, rejected this preliminary objection.
• The bench observed that the petitioner was not merely agitating a service grievance but was seeking enforcement of statutory rights under the RPwD Act and her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
• Declining to exercise writ jurisdiction in such a case, the court held that it would “result in failure of justice and defeat the spirit behind the RPwD Act”.

Core dispute: Is ‘Uttama’ equivalent to SSC?

• The railways maintained that the Uttama qualification was not recognised as equivalent to Secondary School Certificate (SSC) for the purposes of recruitment.
• The Uttama qualification granted by the Bombay Hindi University is considered equivalent to SSC.
• In response, the petitioner relied on a government resolution dated February 28, 2007, which recognised the Uttama course as equivalent to SSC.
• The respondents placed reliance on a full bench decision of the Nagpur Bench in Dhiraj S/o Narayan Narekar v. MSRTC, where equivalence granted to certain Hindi qualifications had been held to be restricted in scope.
• The bench distinguished that ruling.
• It noted that the full bench had examined equivalence in the context of appointments as Hindi teachers and in a completely different factual setting.
• The present case, the court emphasised, concerned a disabled candidate seeking a Class IV post and invoking statutory disability rights.
• The earlier judgment, the court held, had “no applicability” to the present case.