Top Court sets aside State Govt's decision to demote disabled teacher in return for transfer to his home town

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal by a handicapped teacher who challenged his transfer to his home district at the cost of downgradation in his seniority.

A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari noted,

"The marginalization of the disabled/handicapped is a human rights issue, which has been the subject matter of deliberations and discussion all over the world. There is increasing global concern to ensure that the disabled are not sidelined on account of their disability."

Referring to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) which has been ratified by India, Court said that the Articles of the UNCRPD are based on certain general principles, the most important of which is respect for the inherent dignity and individual autonomy of persons with disability.

"Equally important is the right of non-discrimination, which would include reasonable accommodation and/or concessions for full and effective participation and inclusion in society. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity lies at the core of the dignity of persons with disability...", added the bench.

Court also noted that the disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 including the right to carry out any occupation, profession, the right to life under Article 21, which has now been interpreted to mean the right to live with dignity, which has to be interpreted liberally in relation to the disabled.

In the case before Court, one Net Ram Yadav, a handicapped candidate of the “OBC” category who was selected Senior Teacher under the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan, through a direct competitive examination had challenged his downgradation in seniority.

In 1993, Yadav was appointed as Senior Teacher and allotted Ganganagar Zone. The terms and conditions of the service of the Appellant were governed by the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971.

Two months later, by an order issued by the Office of the District Education Officer (Students Associations) Sriganganagar, Yadav was appointed Senior Teacher of the Government Secondary School, Deeplana, in Hanumangarh, District Bikaner.

In July 2000, a Circular was issued by the Finance Department of the Rajasthan Government, directing all appointing authorities to consider the appointment/posting of persons with disabilities at or near the place for which they opt at the time of appointment/posting.

Accordingly, Yadav made a representation to be transferred to his home district Alwar, considering his physical disability and the difficulties faced by him due to being posted at a distance of about 550 kms from his residence.

His request was allowed but when in April 2017, the temporary eligibility list of qualified teachers for promotion to the post of Head Master was published, Yadav's name did not feature in the aforesaid list as his State Level seniority had been changed from 870 to 1318.

Yadav later found that in 2007, the Commissioner, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan deleted his name from the State and Divisional level seniority list.

A representation made to the Director of Secondary Education, Rajasthan to restore his seniority was also denied. Writ petitions before the High Court were dismissed by the Single and Division benches.

Top Court found that the object of the Circular issued by the Rajasthan Government was to benefit the physically disabled, inter alia, enable them to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available.

"The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose", Court noted.

While allowing the appeal, Court held that the High Court should have been more sensitive and empathetic to the plight of a physically disabled and it erred in law in overlooking the difference between physically disabled persons impaired in their movement and normal able-bodied persons. 

Case Title: NET RAM YADAV vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.