http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 31 of 2000

PETITIONER:

Amita

RESPONDENT:

Union of India & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2005

BENCH:

Y.K. SABHARWAL,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

Pursuant to an advertisement issued at the instance of

the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Chennai ( in short "the

"Board") in the Employment Newspaper dated 9-15th October,

1999 inviting applications for the post of Probationary Officers in

Indian Overseas Banks, the Writ Petitioner, who is a visually

handicapped lady, applied for the said post. The requisite

qualifications for eligibility were:

(a) A degree from a recognized University or any

qualification recognized as equivalent by Government of

India.

(b) Not below 21 years and above 30 years.

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner fulfilled both

the requirements. The writ petitioner had sent her application

along with a demand draft. While filling up the said

application form, the writ petitioner mentioned that she was a

blind candidate so that the Board could make adequate

arrangement of a scribe for her during the entrance test as is

normally done. Unfortunately, the application of the writ

petitioner for writing the examination, as stated above, was

returned with the following order:

"As we do not recruit blind candidates for the post

of Probationary Officers, your application is rejected."

As against this order and also for other reliefs, the writ

petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India. After the Writ Petition was moved by the

writ petitioner, on her prayer, the writ petitioner was allowed to

amend the writ application in which she claimed additional

reliefs which are as follows:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction directing the respondents to hold the

entrance examination for the benefit of the petitioner

under the advertisement dated 9-15th October, 1999

issued in Employment Newspaper.

(b) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction declaring that the denial of

opportunity to contest under general category to the

visually disabled person to the post of Probationary

Officer is violative of fundamental rights enshrined

under Art.14,16,19(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate order or

direction calling upon the respondents to show the steps

taken by them under sections 32, 33,38,42 and 47 of

"The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities

etc.) Act 1995" (hereinafter in short "The Act of 1995).

On behalf of the writ petitioner, Ms. Neeru Vaid

contended that the order passed by the Board rejecting the

application of the writ petitioner on the ground that since the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

writ petitioner being a visually impaired lady could not be

recruited in the Bank for the Post of Probationary Officers, was

erroneous on its face as in the advertisement the requirements of

the Board were only to the extent that a candidate should not be

less than 21 years and not above 30 years and he or she should

be a Graduate. It was also argued that denial of opportunity to

sit and write the examination in question also violated Articles

14 & 16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. On the other

hand, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that since the

post of Probationary Officer was not earmarked for visually

impaired persons the rejection of the application of the writ

petitioner was valid.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the materials on record, we are of the view

that the order passed by the Board rejecting the application of

the writ petitioner on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained.

As noted hereinearlier, the requirements asked for by the Board

for writing the examination for appointment to the post of

Probationary Officer in the Bank were that a candidate shall not

be less than 21 years and not above 30 years and that the

candidate must possess a Graduation degree. There is no

dispute that the writ petitioner has satisfied the aforesaid two

conditions. That apart, the writ petitioner although being a

visually impaired lady had applied to write the examination for

the post of Probationary Officer of the Bank as a general

candidate and therefore we do not find any reason why such

opportunity to write the examination should be refused by the

Board. That apart, we find that the writ petitioner had also

applied to B.S.R.B. Bangalore for the same post. There she had

mentioned the fact of her disability on the application form and

inspite of informing the Board she had received the admit card

for the entrance test which was held on 20th February 2000 and

such grant of admit card would clearly show that the writ

petitioner could not be thrown out on the ground that she was

visually impaired lady, who could not be allowed to sit and

write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer in the

bank.

This question is, however, concluded by a decision of

this Court in National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public

Service Commission & Ors. ( 1993 ) 2 SCC 411 which was

rendered on a writ application filed for direction for permission

for the visually impaired persons to compete and write Civil

Services Examination and also for being given preferencial

treatment in respect of the identified post. It is also important to

mention that the said decision of this Court in National

Federation of Blind Vs. Union Public Service Commission &

Ors. also observed as follows:

"The question of giving preference to the

handicapped in the matter of recruitment to the identified posts

is a matter for the Government of India to decide. The matter is

pending for decision with the Government of India for the last

several years. While appreciating the handicapped persons we

commend the Government of India to decide the question of

providing preference/reservation to the handicapped in Group A

and B posts as expeditiously as possible.."

Again at Page 416 of the said decision of this Court it

observed as follows:

"The list of category A & B posts identified as suitable

for the visually handicapped by the committee includes number

of posts which are filled as a result of the civil services

examination. When there are posts to which blind and partially

blind can be appointed, we see no ground to deprive them of

their rights to compete for those posts along with other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

candidate belonging to general category."

Finally this Court directed the authorities to permit the

visually impaired persons to compete the Civil Services

Examination. While appreciating the handicapped persons this

Court commended the Government of India to decide the

question of providing preference/reservation to the handicapped

in Group A & B posts as expeditiously as possible. This Court

in the aforesaid decision also observed that the list of jobs

identified by the committee as suitable for being held for

physically handicapped persons was not exhaustive and that the

Ministries/Departments can further supplement the list based on

their knowledge for jobs requirements, essential qualifications

etc.

From the aforesaid decision of this Court, it would also

be clear that the only restriction which can be spelt out from the

ratio of that decision was whether the post in respect whereof

the petitioner sought consideration was whether the post is

liable to be considered as totally unsuitable for visually

handicapped person having regard to the nature of duties

attached to the office/post.

( Emphasis supplied )

From the aforesaid observations of this Court, we are

confident that the visually impaired candidate would be entitled

to sit and write the examination for selection for the post of

Probationary Officer in a Bank but only restriction that would

be standing in the way of the writ petitioner for selection is that

the nature of duties attached to the office/post would be

unsuitable for the visually impaired candidate. Accordingly,

we are of the view that the order passed by the authorities

rejecting the application of the writ petitioner on the ground

shown in the order was erroneous, illegal and invalid in law and

therefore cannot be sustained. In any view of the matter, so far

as prayer for permitting the writ petitioner to sit and write the

examination for the year in question of which rejection order

was passed, in our view, the Writ Petition had rendered

infructuous as it is now an admitted position that the

examination for selection in the post of Probationary Officer in

the Bank of the year in question was held, result was

subsequently published and the vacancies were duly filled in by

making appointments on the basis of such selection of

candidates. In view of the other reliefs prayed by the writ

petitioner in the amended Writ Petition, the question now

needs to be decided is whether the writ petitioner being a

visually impaired lady would be allowed to sit and write the

forthcoming examination for the post of Probationary Officer

and can be appointed in such post, in view of nature of duties

attached to a Probationary Officer. As found herein earlier, it

cannot be doubted that a visually impaired candidate is entitled

to sit and write the Probationary Officer examination along with

other general candidates where any post is not earmarked for

handicapped persons, as a general candidate.

Taking our findings, as made herein earlier to the extent

that the writ petitioner was entitled to sit and write the

examination for selection of Probationary Officer in the Bank,

let us now proceed to consider whether the writ petitioner would

be entitled for appointment in the post of Probationary Officer

of the Bank in question, if successful in the written examination

in view of the nature of the job to be performed as Probationary

Officer. Before we deal with this aspect of the matter, we may

take into consideration yet another aspect of the matter,

namely, whether denial of permission to the writ petitioner to sit

and write the examination for the post of Probationary Officer

in the Bank offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees to

every citizen of India the right to equality before the law or the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

equal protection of law. The first expression "equality before

the law" which is taken from the English common law, is a

declaration of equality of all persons within the territory of

India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in

favour of any individual. It also means that amongst the equals

the law should be equal and should be equally administered and

that likes should be treated alike. Thus, what forbids is

discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar

circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid different

treatment of unequal. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is

both negative and positive right. Negative in the sense that no

one can be discriminated against anybody and everyone should

be treated as equals. The latter is the core and essence of right

to equality and state has obligation to take necessary steps so

that every individual is given equal respect and concern which

he is entitled as a human being. Therefore, Art.14

contemplates reasonableness in the state action, the absence of

which would entail the violation of Art.14 of the Constitution.

In our view, and in view of the discussions made

herein earlier, in the facts and circumstance of this case, Art.14

was infringed for denial of permission to the petitioner to sit

and write the examination for selection of Probationary

Officers. As noted herein earlier, writ petitioner was not

allowed to sit for the competitive examination for the post of

the Bank Probationary Officer on the ground that she was

visually impaired candidate although the advertisement in the

newspaper did not disclose that a visually impaired candidate

cannot be allowed to sit and write the examination as the nature

and duty of the job were not suitable for the visually impaired

candidate. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had

qualified for the post of Bank Probationary Officer as per the

advertisement. Statement has been made in the writ petition by

the writ petitioner to the effect that the writ petitioner like other

visually impaired persons can perfectly perform the job of a

Probationary Officer. She also applied for the same post to the

B.S.R.B. and received her admit card for the same. Thus, there

is discrimination by the respondent No.2 between the writ

petitioner and persons who are substantially in similar

circumstances or conditions. Here the writ petitioner was not

allowed to sit for the entrance examination and hence was

discriminated against the others who qualified for the same

entrance examination. Therefore. the rejection of the

application by the respondents besides the ground already

stated hereinearlier, was not on reasonable grounds and was

arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 which is a fundamental right

of every citizen to be treated equally. In this connection, it is

stated by the writ petitioner that a visually impaired lady Ms.

Nafisa is now functioning as a Probationary Officer in one of

the Central Bank of India situated at Bombay. Under Art.16

of the Constitution the general rule laid down is that there

should be equal opportunity for citizens in matters relating to

"employment" or "appointment to any office" under the State.

The expression "matter relating to employment or appointment"

includes all matters in relation to employment both prior and

subsequent to the employments which are incidental to the

employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such

employment. Therefore, under Art.16 of the Constitution what

is guaranteed is the equal opportunity to all persons. This

Clause accordingly does not prevent the state from laying down

the requisite qualifications recruitment for government service,

and it is open to the authority to lay down such other conditions

of appointment as would be conducive to the maintenance of

proper discipline among government servants. Like other

employers, government is also entitled to pick and choose from

amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

employment. But this can only be done only on one condition

that all applicants must be given an equal opportunity along

with others who qualify for the same post. The selection test

must not be arbitrary and technical qualifications and standards

should be prescribed where necessary. In this case, in our

view, there is violation of the right of the writ petitioner under

Art. 16(1) which provides for general rule, that there should be

equal opportunity for citizens in matters relating to

"employment" or "appointment to any office" under the State,

matters incidental to employment both prior and subsequent to

the employments which form part of the terms and conditions of

such employment. In this case, the writ petitioner was in the

first instance denied equal opportunity as given to other

applicants from appearing in the entrance examination on the

ground of disability which was not mentioned as a condition in

the advertisement. That apart, the writ petitioner, although a

visually impaired lady had not asked for any special favour for

the post of Probationary Officer for selection in the post of

Probationary Officer. The writ petitioner without asking for

any favour had only applied for writing the examination for

selection not as a reserved handicapped candidate but along

with general candidates who were allowed by the Board to sit

and write the examination. Since the writ petitioner was

similarly situated with other general candidates, and the writ

petitioner had not asked for any advantage for being a visually

impaired candidate, we failed to understand why she was not

permitted to sit and write the examination for the post of

Probationary Officer in the Bank..

At the risk of repetition, it may be reiterated that writ

petitioner fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the

advertisement for the post. The primary object which is

guaranteed by Art. 16(1) is equality of opportunity and that was

violated by the Board by debarring the writ petitioner from

appearing in the examination on the mere fact of disability

which was not mentioned in the advertisement and which

according to the writ petitioner is not an impediment for the

post. We are therefore of the view that the action of the Board

was arbitrary, baseless and was in violation of the right of the

writ petitioner under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. Further

discussion on violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the

Constitution would not be necessary in view of the stand taken

by the authorities in their written submissions, affidavits and

rejoinder affidavits filed on different dates.

Let us now consider whether the writ petitioner was

entitled to be selected and appointed as Probationary Officer in

the Bank in view of the nature of duties to be performed by her

as Probationary Officer.

Before we take up this question for decision we keep it

on record that this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution

was entertained by this Court on 8th May 2000. This Court

granted four weeks time to the respondents to file a counter

affidavit. However, pending hearing of the writ petition, this

Court passed an interim order to the effect that in the meantime,

if all the posts were not filled up, one post shall not be filled up

till further orders from this Court. Subsequently, on 1st August

2000 counter affidavit was filed by the Board in which it was,

inter-alia, stated that the post of Probationary Officer was not

identified for the "Blinds" under the Notification of the

Department of the Personnel and Training dated 25th November

1986. The Board also in their counter affidavit stated that the

reason for rejection of the application of the writ petitioner was

due to the fact that the posts of Probationary Officers were not

identified posts for visually handicapped candidates. In the

counter affidavit, the Board had relied on a Circular issued by

the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training O.M.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

No.F. 36034/4/ESTT.(SCT) dated 25th November 1986 which

identified post of General Banking Officer as suitable only for

the following 4 categories:-

1. BL-----Both legs affected but not arms

2. OS-----One arm affected (R or L)

3. OL--- One leg affected (R &/OL)

4. MW- Muscular weakness and limited physical endurance.

In view of the above and in view of the assertions made by

the Board in their counter affidavit regarding the capability of a

blind person to serve the post of Probationary Officer in the Banks,

it was stated that the application of the writ petitioner who being a

visually impaired candidate was rightly rejected by the Board.

That apart, it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the

nature of job of a Probationary Officer demands performance of

various types of jobs under different Departments like Savings

Bank and Current Account, other term deposits, collecting and

clearing (inward and outward Bills), Cash counter and recounting

of currency notes and remitting excess cash balance. It was

further asserted by the Board that various duties and

responsibilities of an officer in the above departments were only

illustrative and not exhaustive, and that it was expected of a

Probationary Officer to make himself/herself available for the

services of the Bank as per the exigencies of service. Apart from

that, the function of the Bank has now become far more varied and

diversified with the advent of liberalization of economy, so that the

duties and functions of a Bank Officer have become more

complicated, complex and difficult requiring greater alertness,

presence of mind and maximum utilization of all his/her physical

and mental facilities. In the counter affidavit, the Board also

categorically has stated that the job of a Probationary Officer is not

a specialist officer's job and a Probationary Officer is also

transferred from one station to another during his/her tenure. The

officer in Savings Bank Account/Current Account Department is

required to verify the specimen signature of the customers while

passing cheques for payment. At the same time the Probationary

Officer concerned should also know the customers who come to

Bank on and off for transacting business and that it would not be

possible for a blind officer to get to know about the customers and

verify their signatures for day-to-day banking transactions.

According to the respondents, and considering all these patent

impediments and constraints the Government of India did not

identify the post of Probationary Officers for "Blinds".

Subsequently a written submission was filed by the respondent

No.1 Union of India in which it has been clearly stated that the

scheme of reservation to physically handicapped persons has been

in vogue in respect of Group C & D employees in the Central

Government Services. This policy has also been extended to

Public Sector Banks. However, there was no such reservation in

Group B and A services of the Central Government. Accordingly,

there was no reservation for physically handicapped persons

including visually handicapped in any of the post under the

officers category in Public Sector Banks till the enactment of the

Act 1995 which came into force from January 1996. The then

Ministry of Welfare which is now renamed as Ministry of Social

Justice and Empowerment had identified various posts in Group C

& D in which reservation to physically handicapped candidates,

namely, Orthopaedically handicapped, hearing impaired and

visually handicapped for recruitment should be provided on

percentage basis. In spite of this stand, there was no reservation in

Group A & B services at that stage. As noted herein earlier, it was

brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent No.1 in their

written submission that the post of General Banking Officer could

be identified as suitable for the following four categories under the

Orthopaedically handicapped category.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

a. BL\027Both legs affected but not arms

b. OA\027One arm affected (R or L)

c. OL\027One leg affected (R or L)

d. MW\027Muscular weakness and limited physical

endurance.

From the written submission it would also be evident

after the introduction of reservation to persons with disabilities

under the Act 1995, the Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment had advised all the Government Departments to

provide reservation in the posts in Group A and B which were

identified as suitable for a particular category of physically

handicapped as per list provided by them earlier in 1996. A

committee was set up by the Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment for fresh identification of various posts in Group A

& B in which reservation should be provided to different

categories of disabled persons. It was the further case of the

Union of India in their written submission that the post of

Probationary Officers for which entrance tests are conducted by

different BSRB including the Board are the posts which are

identified as a suitable post only to Orthopaedically handicapped

persons of the description as noted above. Thus, neither visually

handicapped nor hearing impaired was suitable for the post of

General Banking Officers.

According to the Board, the reason behind such

identification was that a Banking Officer working generally in the

branches and other public offices are required to verify the legal

documents including cheques, drafts,bankers cheques etc. and such

officers have to have close interactions with the public members,

senior officials of the organization as well as various public

institutions etc. For the aforesaid reason a person of visual

deficiency may not prove to be effective and likely to commit

losses to the institutions as well as public money.

On 30th November 2000, this Court granted six weeks

time to the learned Solicitor General for filing the necessary order

and passed the following order:

" the learned Solicitor General appears and submits that

keeping in view humane aspects of the problem, he would examine

and discuss the matter after summoning concerned officials and

file an affidavit by the next date indicating such posts as in the

Banking Division of the Ministry of Finance where visibly

handicapped candidates may be considered for appointment. He

also submits that he would impress upon the concerned ministry to

take steps for revision of the list which was formulated as early as

in 1986." ( underlining is ours )

The writ petitioner on 23rd December 2000 filed an

additional affidavit to bring certain additional facts before this

Court. The petitioner pointed out that she was undergoing an

advanced diploma course in computer application and access

technology. This course would enable her to use computer as an

effective tool for reading hard copy printed text, to create and edit

documents, to browse the web and send mails in general to use the

computer for any general or customized software independently.

The petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the

National Association for the Blind also recommended for

identification of category A & B posts for the visually challenged

persons in the Nationalised Banks including State Bank of India

and Reserve Bank of India to the standing committee for

identification of jobs for the handicapped, Department of Personal

& Training. The association had brought to the notice of the

committee that "visually handicapped persons in the absence of

sight are suitably trained to develop their auditors, tactile and

kinesthetic senses and are imparted by knowledge by training in

computers, Braille and mobility. The specialized training helps

them to develop complete personality with good communication

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

skills and socially desirable mannerism whereby they can

optimally utilize their mental faculty to take decision in policy

matters and discharge of duties that may be assigned to them."

The association also quoted examples of various visually disabled

persons working in the managerial classes and after careful

consideration has recommended list of posts which can be

identified (like Faculty Member/Training Manager, Administrative

Officials, Economic Affair Officers, Raj Bhasha Adhikari/Hindi

Officer, Law Officer etc.) for the visually handicapped persons in

the Nationalised Banks.

The writ petitioner also pointed out that by an order

dated 7th August 2000 of the Chief Commissioner of Disabilities in

Case No. 7/1999 Rajni Kant Bansal v. General Manager, Union

Bank of India wherein the Bank modified its recruitment and

promotion policy to bring it in alignment with the Persons with

Disabilities Act, 1995 and resolved that one percent of the posts be

reserved for the visually handicapped from clerical cadre to Officer

Cadre. On 5th June 2001, this Court passed the following Order:

"This is a typical case showing how the

laudable object with which the Parliament enacted

Disability (Equal Opportunities and Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and framed

rules 1996 is being frustrated by non-implementation of

that Act by the concerned authorities. The list drawn

up in 1986 was sought to be revised and we are

informed by the learned Solicitor General that an

Expert Committee was constituted to revise the 1986

list in 1998. It was re-constituted in July 1999. The

reconstituted committee also did not submit its report

and about three months after its constitution it formed

up three sub-committees, which also seem to have done

nothing so far.

We are pained and distressed at this apathy

being shown towards the unfortunate disabled and

handicapped. The attitude of indifference causes us

concern.

We direct and hope that within two months

the sub-committees would submit their report and

within three months from this date, the Expert

Committee would furnish the revised list to the

Government that shall be placed in record in the Court."

On 20th April 2001 this Court granted the prayer of

learned Solicitor General when he submitted that the reconstituted

Expert Committee has already submitted its report on 3/3/2001 and

as a result thereof many categories have been added in the list

pertaining to Groups A,B,C and D posts and this Report has been

sent to the concerned Ministry for consideration and that within six

weeks he shall be in a position to place the copy of the report

together with the follow up action taken by them on the affidavit.

On 25th January 2002 this Court passed the following

order:

"The response from the Union of India is not

forthcoming. In view of the earlier adjournments

granted, we give a last opportunity of two weeks on a

prayer made by the learned counsel for the Union of

India subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (payable

Rs.5,000/- to petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to Supreme

Court Legal Services Committee) by way of costs. In

the event of a response forthcoming in two weeks

positively, costs shall stand waived."

Subsequent to this another affidavit was filed by the

Union of India on 8th February 2002 in which it has been stated

that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

Government of India in pursuance of provisions of section 32 of

the said Act 1995 had constituted an Expert Committee on 2nd July

1999 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Secretary, Ministry

of Social Justice and Empowerment to identify/review the posts in

Group A,B,C and D to be reserved for the Persons with disabilities

in its Ministries/Departments and Public Sector Undertakings.

In this affidavit, the Union of India has further stated

that due to the order of this Court dated 5th January 2001 which

directed the Government to do the needful within three months, the

Expert Committee had finalized its report by holding proper

consultation with all concerned like The Indian Banks Association

and submitted its report on 3rd March 2001. In this affidavit the

Union of India for the first time has come forward to say that the

post of Probationary Officer Grade "A" has also been included in

the posts identified as suitable for the blind by its committee.

This report was circulated to all Central Ministries/Departments to

obtain their comments on the recommendations/posts identified by

the Expert Committee. But before the responses could be received

or attended as there was an urgency to notify the report of the

Expert Committee to enable the persons with disabilities to avail of

the benefits of reservation against the newly identified posts, the

Government notified the report by Notification dated 31st May

2001. The Ministry of Social Justice published the

recommendation of the Expert Committee in the Gazette on 30th

June 2001. It was further alleged that while the committee agreed

that the work can be performed by one who can see, read and

write, the job (Probationary Officer "A") has been identified as

suitable for the blind or persons with low vision. But the Indian

Banks Association pointed out all jobs of officers in Public Sector

Banks cannot be performed by the visually handicapped persons

and they suggested that only a few of jobs like officer (Marketing),

Officer (Publicity ) can be performed by the visually handicapped

persons.

Another affidavit on behalf of Union of India was also

filed which states that the post of Probationary Officer Grade "A"

has been identified as suitable for the visually handicapped for the

first time by a Notification dated 31st May 2001 and published in

the Gazette dated 30th June 2002.

On 2nd May 2002 this Court passed the following order:

"To protect the interest of the petitioner it is

directed that the time spent during these proceedings

shall be excluded while calculating the upper age limit

prescribed for appointment on any post to which the

petitioner may be found eligible at the end\005\005Looking

to the importance of the matter we think it would be

proper if the hearing is taken up by a three Judge

Bench\005.we request the learned Solicitor General to

assist the Court and in case it is not convenient for him

to do so then any learned Additional Solicitor General

may be instructed by him to assist the Court\005"

Finally on 22nd December 2004 the written submission

was filed on behalf of the Union of India in which it has been

stated that any discrepancies observed in the list identified posts

will be rectified during the review of the list proposed to be done

shortly and proposal is under active consideration. It was further

stated that the writ petitioner being a visually impaired candidate

has to either appear in the examination for selection under the

reserved category or she can appear with the general candidates.

It was further clarified that if she wants to appear as a general

category candidate then she has to compete with the general

category candidates only and she cannot be given any weightage as

the same would amount to discrimination to others competing with

her in the said category. It further clarified the position that OM

No. 36035/4/2003-Establishment dated 8.7.2003 provided that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

vacancies reserved for any category need to be filled by persons

belonging to that category and such vacancies are not open to

others. On the other hand, unreserved vacancies are open to all

and reserved category candidates cannot be denied the right to

compete for appointment against such vacancies, provided they are

otherwise eligible. (underlining is ours )

In view of this specific stand taken by the Union of

India in their written submission and affidavits as detailed

hereinearlier,by which the Union of India has categorically stated

that a visually impaired candidate would be entitled to write the

examination and compete the same along with other general

candidates as if she was a general candidate in the said

examination and in the event he/she wants to compete the

examination on reserved category in that case also he/she will be

entitled to sit as a reserve candidate in the said examination when

some percentage of the posts are earmarked for visually

impaired candidates. It is needless to say that the Union of India

and Bank Authorities have therefore admitted that the nature of

duties of a Probationary Officer can be performed by a visually

impaired candidate and some percentage of impaired candidates

are entitled for being selected and appointed as Probationary

Officers of the Bank either from the general category or from the

reserved category.

In view of the specific orders passed by this Court

pending hearing of the writ petition and considering the fact that

this writ petition was pending for more than a period of four years,

age restriction, so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, shall stand

relaxed.

Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of in the

following manner:

(1) If the writ petitioner chooses to appear as a general

candidate to sit and write any forthcoming examination as

a Probationary Officer of the Bank, she will be entitled

to do so.

(2) If selected, she may be appointed as Probationary Officer

subject to her satisfying the other terms and conditions for

appointment in the said post.

(3) If the writ petitioner writes the examination as a reserved

candidate that is to say on the visually impaired seat, if

there be any, and she succeeds in the said examination,

she can be appointed on such reserved category in the

event percentage of Probationary Officer's post is kept

reserved for visually impaired candidate by the

respondents.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there

will be no order as to costs.