Job quota: HC asks its administration to set aside 400 non-judicial seats for the disabled

MUMBAI: In an order that comes as a boost to rights of the disabled, the Bombay high court on Thursday held that provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 would apply to the HC on its administrative side for recruitment of non-judicial staff. The HC, thus, directed that 4% or nearly 400 posts be kept on hold in a recruitment process launched recently for posts of peons, clerks and stenographers in subordinate judiciary across the state.
The HC vacated a stay on recruitment granted earlier last month. A bench of Justices Naresh Patil and Girish Kulkarni partly allowed a PIL filed by the National Association of the Blind (NAB), which said the 2016 social welfare legislation applies to courts too. The HC held the law does not apply to the HC on its judicial side.


The HC directed the court administration to not fill 4% of the posts in the recruitment process which are required to be reserved for persons with disabilities. And it directed a “fresh recruitment drive be undertaken at the earliest” after posts are identified to enforce reservation. The bench said the law, which confers rights on the disabled, “must be implemented in letter and spirit.” “The provisions must be liberally construed so that the object of the law is achieved,” the bench said. The 2016 Act which has expanded the list of disabilities to confer benefit on a larger section had been in operation for a year before HC issued its recruitment ad. But the HC administration could not identify posts to be reserved, observed the judges.


The HC had recently advertised for recruitment for 9,000 posts of stenographers, peons and clerks in district courts. The drive was stayed by HC last month after NAB and Sachin Chavan from Aurangabad filed two PILs to question lack of reservations under the Disabilities Act. The HC’s administrative side, through counsel Sudhir Talsania, said it was its choice whether to adopt and apply the Act. But HC said it was “not convinced with the submissions” as it was clear the earlier 1995 law was made applicable to nonjudicial services in judiciary.


Advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said on its “administrative side” the HC was akin to “a state” to which the 2016 Act would be applicable. The bench agreed. The HC accepted submissions of Talsania that courts need additional staff and rejected a plea by Warunjikar for stay on recruitment to continue. Allowing the recruitment process to go on, the HC said, “We are conscious of the fact that keeping the posts vacant in the courts is not going to serve any purpose as the same would affect effective functioning of courts.”