The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed that the HC shall not fill 4% of posts reserved for person with disability for stenographer, junior clerk and peon in the current recruitment process at district courts.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by the National Federation of the Blind, Maharashtra, that seeks a direction from court to implement the provisions of either or both the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) (PDA), 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPDA), 2016.
The petition was heard together with a public interest litigation filed by Sachin Chavan, who is 100% blind, seeking a direction from court to quash and set aside an advertisement published in a local newspaper on March 27, 2018, and on the next day on the HC website, which sought applicants for posts including stenographers, junior clerks and peons/hamals in various district courts in Maharashtra. For the post of junior clerk, the HC has reserved only 1% for hearing impaired people and 1% for ‘one leg affected’.
The PIL urges that a fresh advertisement should be published providing appropriate reservation for disabled candidates, including those with visual disabilities. Mr. Chavan says that as per PDA, reservation was prescribed for visually impaired candidates, and as per RPDA, additional categories of reservation are prescribed for persons with disabilities.
Govt. establishments
Atul Kurehekar, Registrar (Legal & Research), Bombay High Court, Appellate Side, said, the advertisement was issued to recruit staff for the district courts of Maharashtra, and these courts are not included in the definition of ‘Government Establishment’ under the RPDA. He also pointed out the number of vacancies: there are only 8,479 junior clerks currently, against the sanctioned strength of 9,131, and for peons and hamals, the working strength is around 3,978 against the sanctioned strength of 4,687.
Balanced solution
A Division Bench of Justices Naresh Patil and G.S. Kulkarni said, “We are conscious of the fact that keeping the posts vacant in the courts is not going to serve any purpose as the same would affect effective functioning of the courts. We are informed that more than 3.5 lakh candidates have already filed applications. In case the recruitment process itself is quashed and set aside, it may disturb the recruitment process and may cause prejudice to the candidates who have so far submitted on-line applications. Conscious of the situation, we have to find a balanced solution to the emerging issue.”
The Bench ruled, “The recruitment process shall be allowed to continue with a rider that the HC shall keep 4% seats/posts vacant in the subject recruitment drive and these seats shall be filled in after HC takes a decision on the administrative side on identification of posts. Thereafter by a special drive, recruitment process could be initiated for filling up vacancies for persons who are covered under the provisions of Act of 2016.” The court directed the HC to undertake a fresh recruitment drive for the posts.
