Stipulating 50% Disability Limit In Hearing, sight, etc. For Post Of Judicial Officer valid: SC

Stipulating 50% Disability Limit In Hearing, sight, etc. For Post Of Judicial Officer valid: SC 


The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of prescription of disability to the extent of 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by a V. Surendra Mohan, who was held ineligible for the post of judicial officer (civil judge) as it was found that he was having 70% disability. 

Supreme Court has held that the prescription does not contravene any provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 or any other statutory provision.

The appellant had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court: 
In appeal he argue before  the ape Court that the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been identified under Section 32 of the Disability Act, 1995, and, therefore, no restriction of disability to the extent of 40%-50% could be imposed.

Delhi HC refuses BookMyShow an injunction against BookMyEvent

He submitted that since “complete blindness” has been provided as the only exemption under proviso to Section 33 for the post, the appellant who is not completely blind but has 70% disability cannot be said to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
“It is well within the power of appointing authority to prescribe eligibility looking to the nature of the job, which is to be performed by holder of a post”, court said.
While upholding the said stipulation, the bench observed: “A judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable.”

Source: LiveLaw, BarandBench