A candidate applying for post of Judicial Officer under the General Category cannot subsequently change the status to a disabled candidate: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate who applied for recruitment in the Civil Judge Cadre in the general category, could not later on change the status to disabled category. A writ of Mandamus issued by the High Court to consider the same would not also be justified.

The appellants - High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur had issued a Notification calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate in the Civil Judge Cadre, 2016 among which, two posts were kept reserved for persons with disabilities. Neetu Harsh (Respondent) who was visually impaired applied for the post but in the General Category instead of the reserved category.

After the results were declared, the Respondent requested to consider her candidature under the category for Differently Abled persons as visually impaired and to provide the appointment. However, she was informed that her request could not be accepted.

The High Court, however, took a sympathetic view that even though the candidate committed a mistake, the representation submitted by her subsequently ought to have been considered. The Court observed that the object of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) should have been kept in view.

Further, the issue was also as to whether the direction by the High Court is justified when no application was filed seeking benefit of the reserved category.

The Supreme Court held that the very nature of the contention indicated that the claim of disability in the application under the ‘disabled’ category should have been made and the disability certificate should have been produced along with the application since the nature of the disability was a matter to be considered by the recruiting authorities concerned, if need be on medical examination.

The Court further held that when there was uncertainty on the issue as to whether the disability claimed was locomotor disability or visual impairment and the same itself being a question to be debated, it would not be possible for the Court to act as an expert and in such circumstance a mandamus to consider the same in a particular manner would not also be justified. If visual impairment as a consequence of Hemiplegia was to be considered, the percentage of disability by visual impairment will also be relevant and the same was required to be determined at the appropriate stage.

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court terming it to be unsustainable.

A bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and R. Banumathi presided over the case.

Full View Judgement