MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"Bombay High Court Upholds Rights of Visually Impaired Candidate, Directs Railway Recruitment Cell to Process Candidature"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment affirming the rights of persons with disabilities, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justices Nitin Jamdar and M.M. Sathaye, has set a precedent by directing the Railway Recruitment Cell to process the candidature of Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane, a 100% visually impaired candidate. The court's decision came after the petitioner's application for the post of Assistant in Level-1 in 'D' grade was initially rejected due to an error in her date of birth entry.

The court observed, "The stand taken by the Respondents that they are bound by the clause of advertisement to apply it uniformly and inflexibly and they therefore cannot remedy the situation, in spite of Court calling upon them to do so, overlooks the responsibility to treat persons with disabilities differently." This statement underscores the need for authorities to exercise sensitivity and flexibility when dealing with candidates with disabilities.

Justice Jamdar, in his judgment, emphasized the importance of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, stating, "The legislation for the disabled should not merely remain in the statute book; rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be applied by all authorities in its practical application showing appropriate sensitivity and flexibility."

The case, which highlights the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in the employment sector, saw the petitioner initially being denied the opportunity to correct a minor error in her application form. The court criticized this approach, noting, "Rejecting the applications and then refusing to remedy the mistakes even within a reasonable time solely because of these errors, would contravene the principle of equality."

In its decision, the court directed the Railway Recruitment Cell to process Sonawane's candidature within six weeks, setting aside the rejection of her application. This judgment is seen as a significant step towards ensuring equal opportunities and fair treatment for persons with disabilities in India.

The case has been closely followed by advocates and activists working in the field of disability rights, who hail the decision as a victory for inclusivity and fairness in the public employment sector.

Date of Decision : 27-02-2024

Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane  Vs.Union of India and Others

Latest Legal News