SUJATA BORA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement was published by Coal India Limited (CIL) for recruitment of Management Trainees in 2019. The appellant applied for the post under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category. appellant was selected for the interview. By a communication of 1/7/2021 appellant was called for document verification (DV) and Initial Medical Examination (IME). The appellant appeared for the IME in September 2021, however, she was declared unfit on the ground that she was not only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis. Aggrieved the appellant filed WPA No. 970 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.

(2.) A learned Single Judge (Lapita Banerjee J.) after a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (for short 'RPwD Act') and the relevant notifications found that CIL being a Public Sector Corporation could not refuse appointment in the multiple disabilities category and that it was incumbent upon CIL to suitably modify the recruitment notifications. The learned Single Judge found that the IME result of 23/9/2021 that declared the appellant unfit, was liable to be quashed. However, since, the appellant approached the Court after the completion of the recruitment process. The Court allowed the appellant to participate in the ensuing recruitment process (2023) in the reserved category for persons with disability. The learned Single Judge made it clear that the recruitment process of the appellant will be considered from the stage of IME, and if found eligible she will be given appointment as Management Trainee upon compliance of all formalities. The learned Single Judge's judgment was dtd. 10/8/2023. It must also be pointed out that pending the disposal of the writ petition, by an interim order dtd. 27/3/2023, one post was ordered to be kept vacant in the cadre of management trainee (personnel and HR).

(3.) CIL carried the matter to the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by the impugned, order found that the writ petition was filed after the expiry of the panel and even the interim order was passed after the expiry of panel and hence, directing the authorities to consider the candidature in respect of the same recruitment process or in the next recruitment process was not tenable. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge.