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.