D. Babu Rajendran vs The General Manager Southern Railway and Others

Ramanujam, J.—The Petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the second Respondent, the Chief Personnel

Officer, Southern Railway, Madras-3, to consider him as a physically handicapped person and to appoint him to any of the posts in Groups C and

D in the Southern Railway.

The Circumstances under which the Petitioner seeks the mandamus are this-the Petitioner has passed his S.S.L.C. examination in March, 1976.

He claims to be a physically handicapped person, since his right eye has no vision from his birth. He enrolled himself in the Special Employment

Office for Physically handicapped Madras-35. The District Employment Officer by his letter, dated 14th November, 1979 informed him that his

name has been sponsored and forwarded to the General Manager, Southern Railway (Personnel) Branch) Madras, for consideration against

Groups C and D vacancies as and when the vacancies are filled up in the Railways. In the list forwarded by the District Employment Officer the

Petitioner''s name found a place as Serial No. 42. In filling up the pests in Groups C and D three per cent of the vacancies have been reserved for

physically handicapped persons sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Petitioner has not however, been considered for appointment as

against the 3 percent vacancies reserved for physically handicapped on the ground that he cannot be taken to be physically handicapped as per the

instructions given by the Railway Board. The Respondents have chosen to consider the claims of others who have been sponsored by the District

Employment Officer-as handicapped persons and some of them have been given appointment. The Petitioner''s claim for consideration for any

suitable post against the reserved vacancies for physically handicapped was not considered by the Respondents on the ground that he is not a

handicapped person as contemplated in the circular issued by the Railway Board. Subsequently the Petitioner made repeated representations to

the various authorities including the General Manager, Southern Railway. But all his attempts were in vain. Subsequently the Petitioner has chosen

to approach this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner''s claim as a handicapped person to

be considered within the three per cent reserved for handicapped persons.

In the counter/affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents 1, 3 and 5 it is not disputed that the Petitioner''s name was sponsored as a physically

handicapped person by the Employment Exchange. But it is stated in the counter, affidavit that in terms of the Railway Board''s letter, dated 14th

August, 1980, the definition of the handicapped for purpose of reservation in employment will take in only persons who are to completely blind i.e.

both eyes bind and not a person with one eye find and that service the Petitioner does net fit in with the definition of the handicapped as per the

said Railway Board''s letter he was it considered a handicapped person to fall within the reservation of 3 percent for the handicapped. It has also

been stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the Petitioner was not considered; for appointment under the physically handicapped quota as

his deformity does not come under the purview of physically handicapped as defined in tie Railway Board''s circular and that the Southern Railway

has not so far appointed any person with one eye blind under the physically handicapped quota. In the counter affidavit details of the appointments

made for the year 1981-82 out of the physically handicapped persons in Groups C and D have been set out and it is seen that in Group C only

one blind person has been considered for appointment as against 164 posts filled up with handicapped persons. In Group D, 7 blind persons have

been considered as against 350 vacancies filled up with handicapped persons. Out of the total persons recruited in Groups C and D no person

with one eye blind has been recruited so far. It is also stated that the Respondents have acted Strictly in accordance with the criterion laid down in

the Railway Board''s letter, dated 14th August 1980 defining the handicapped for purpose of reservation- Thus, that there is 3 percent quota

reserved for the handicapped is not in dispute, but the actual dispute is whether the Petitioner could be considered as a handicapped so as to claim

the benefit of reservation of three percent for handicapped.

It appears, this question as to whether owe eyed person could be included m the Category of physically handicapped was taken up by the

Government of Tamil Nadu and after obtaining the views of the Enactor of Medical Education and the Board of Revenue the Government have

passed G.O. Ms. No. 31, Social Welfare Department, dated 4th January 1979, accepting the proposal of the Director of Employment and

Training as recommended by the Directed of Medical Education and directing one eyed persons be classified as physically handicapped and their

disability berated as 50 Per cent. The Government also directed that one-eyed persons will be eligible for the various other concessions and

benefits extended by the Government to the physically handicapped persons. It is on the basis of the said Government order the Petitioner has

been treated as a physically handicapped person by the Employment Exchange and his name has been sponsored for appointment to Groups C

and D as against the reserved quota for physically handicapped. It is no doubt true the Railway Board has given the definition of blind as those

who suffer from either of the following conditions:

(a) Total absence of sight:

(b) Visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (Shellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses

(c) Limitation of the filed of vision subtending an angle of 20 degrees or worse.

According to the Railway Board''s letter dated 14th August 1980. on which the Respondents placed reliance, to consider a blind as handicapped

there should be either total absence of sight, or partial sight within certain limits or limitation in the field of vision by a certain level. For a person

with one eye blind there is admittedly a limitation of the field of vision Having regard to the object behind in the said Board''s letter dated 14th

August, 1980 which is found in the ramble to that letter, even persons with one eye blind could be taken to be a handicapped person on a liberal

interpretation of the said letter. As a matter of fact the letter indicates an anxiety on the part of the Ministry of Railways that more reservation

should be made for handicapped persons and the reservation of three percent may not fee taken to be sufficient paragraph 2 of that letter it is

pointed out that hence all the categories in Groups G and D are not amenable to employment of handicapped persons with Various types of

handicaps, it may be necessary to have a high in take of handicapped persons in some of the categories which had been listed and circulated earlier

in the Board''s letter dated 26th October, 1979 and that the extra categories should also be included under the various beads for the purpose of

making additional reservation for the handicapped. In paragraph 3 of the said letter it has been pointed out that the present quota of 3 percent for

employment of handicapped persons especially the blind is in sufficient to meet the requirements of the handicapped persons, that the Special

Employment Exchanges have on their registers a long and active list of persons who are seeking such employments. It is therefore advised that all

the Employment Exchanges may be contacted and list of persons who have qualified for particular jobs of who have been trained by the vocational

Training Centers for particular trades may be obtained and such handicapped persons may be considered for filling up the reserved quota in the

Groups C and D.

Even though the Petitioner is not completely blind and his one eye is blind, as per the G.O. Ms. No. 31, Social Welfare Department, dated 4th

January 1979 issued by the State Government, the Petitioner should be treated as a handicapped person and entitled to all the benefits which the

other handicapped persons are entitled. True no doubt, the Respondents cannot be taken to be bound by the order passed by the State

Government But in so far, as the letter of the Railway Board indicates that the anxiety on the part of the Railways is to offer more opportunities for

the blind and directs the Respondents to contact local Employment Exchanges for such a list of handicapped persons and the Petitioners name

having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange as a handicapped person the Petitioner has to be considered as a handicapped person as

against the reserved quota. The Respondents contention that the Petitioner is not completely blind and therefore he cannot be treated as a

handicapped person is not a humanitarian approach. Admittedly a person having vision in only one eye and the other eye comely blind, cannot be

taken to be a normal person and he is handicapped in many ways. Therefore, such a person has to be treated as a handicapped in all fairness and

specially when the Railway Board has shown any anxiety help as many blind person as possible, as a matter of fact from the figures set out, out of

514 handicapped persons appointed there are only 8 blind a persons. The anxiety of the Railway Board is to help more blind parsons in the matter

of appointment. Instead of going in search of persons completely blind they can as wall consider the claims of partially blind (one eye blind).

In this view of the matter there will be a direction by way of mandamus to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner as against the reserved

quota for future vacancies in C and D Groups The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order, as to costs.